Five Questions to Ask when Translating Learning Content

Are You Translating Learning Content?

Over the last two years, my company has evolved its operating structure from being a multinational corporation into a true global organization.   As a result of this, our L&D services have changed in scope and scale.   In addition to developing and delivering training for our employees in North America, we are now tasked with supporting all of the markets in which we do business.

Needless to say, we have developed our capability to deliver learning services in multiple languages.  In fact, our internal translation management group recently told us that we have pushed ahead of marketing and communications to become the number one consumer of translation services in the company.   We have now taken on somewhat of a spokesperson role inside the company to help other departments who have translation needs.

We have learned quite of few things along the way – some of them the hard way.   Now when faced with a learning project that has to be produced in multiple languages, here are a few questions we must get answered in order to move forward:

1. Who pays?   This is the biggest issue we face.   We do not carry a budget to cover the cost of translations as part of our learning design process.   We must ask this question to the project requester.   Most often the response is, “I hadn’t thought about that.”   We do our best to provide an estimated translation cost.  Then the project sponsor must decide how to proceed.  In most cases, the cost ends up being borne by whoever is trying to push the content out to a particular audience.  But in some cases, the costs are covered by the countries that require the translations.   Either way, we do not move forward until it is clear who will be paying the bill.
   
   
2. Who will review this?   We work with some wonderful translation vendors.  They are reputable and reliable, but they are not part of our company and don’t know our culture.  Before we can finalize any learning material, we require sign-off on the translation from someone inside the company.   It can really derail your project if you don’t have your reviewers lined up ahead of time and ready to go when needed.   Our L&D team doesn’t have the language skills or resources to evaluate the translations, so we require whoever is paying for the translations to identify who the reviewers will be.
   
   
3. What is unique about your content?  The world would be a great place if there was one translation vendor who could do everything we needed, but unfortunately, that is not the case.   Just as different vendors specialize in different languages, many of them specialize in different content types.  We provide learning services to all parts of the company.  This means that we deal with content that can sometimes be very technical in nature (such as product training), very nuanced (such as soft skills training), very marketing oriented (such as training aimed at external audiences), or very heavy with legal implications (such as compliance training).  Different vendors specialize in each of these areas.   It is good to have relationships with a few vendors to cover the whole content spectrum.
   
   
4. What is unique about the target audience?   Straight translation from one language to another can be a dangerous thing.  It is important to understand a little bit about a country and its culture before publishing translated learning content to them.   Some countries expect more formal language than others.   Idioms don’t translate well.   And there are host of other differences that need to be taken into consideration.   A good translation vendor can help with some of these issues, but it really falls on to your in-company language reviewers to let you know what will and will not work for their audience.   A few years back, I worked on a new orientation program that we titled, “Get Connected!”  It had to be translated into several languages.  One of my in-country reviewers told me that the way our vendor had translated the program title it came out as, “Let’s Hook Up!”  That is certainly not what we meant to convey.
   
   
5. What type of learning approach are you taking?   Different languages say things in different ways.  Some languages require more time and space to say something that may have been short and quick in the language of origin.  This has implications for text size, placement of graphics, synchronization of narration, and a number of other things.   It can create some complex problems for integrating translated content back into your source files.   Some translation vendors can do this for you, but they don’t do it for free.

Building Learning Solutions: Reuse vs. Rework

I haven't been writing in a while.  My last blog entry was made on August 25, 2013.  The topic was Contemplating Learning Content Reuse.   Believe it or not, all these months later this is still a topic that is very much on my mind.

If you were to talk to any of my team members or peers about me, they would tell you that my favorite word is reuse and the word I hate the most is rework.  The reasons for this are simple, but let me take a minute to state them here:

The reasons that reuse is my favorite word are speed, productivity, and cost.   When you increase your level of reuse, the time it takes to design and deliver a learning solution is shortened so you can help your business partners meet their objectives faster.   The shortened work cycle means higher productivity for the learning & development team as you can quickly move on to the next priority in the project pipeline.   And of course, any time you can use something more than once, you are saving money.

The reasons that rework is word I hate the most are speed, productivity and cost.   This is simply the other side of the coin.  Rework occurs when a learning solutions doesn't meet the need or isn't acceptable to the client for whom the project is being completed.  Any time you have to go back and rework something you are slowing down the process of meeting the need.   Besides lowering the productivity of the learning & development team, this can also prevent higher productivity for the target audience as they wait for the reworked solution to be released.  And again, of course, time is money so costs increase.

Here are some the things my team does to increase reuse:

1. Use standard tools and templates.   We have an instructional design toolkit that we use when building learning solutions.   Since the work the team produces is in standardized formats, it makes it easier for one team member to pick up and reuse something that was created by another.
2. Share learning assets.   We have a digital asset management library that we use to store (and protect) course files, graphics, audio files, videos, animations, exercises and activities.  I encourage my team to share and reuse as much as possible.   And whenever new assets must be created, they get added to the library for potential future reuse.
3. Use modular design.   In recent years, our learning objects have gotten shorter and more focused.  When possible, we create objects around a single objective so that content that might be reusable, isn't embedded with content that is unnecessary or inappropriate for a learning need.
4.  Create "brand neutral" learning objects.   While it may seem cool to have programs that are branded to support a specific event or initiative, this limits reusability.  It can be distracting to a learner who comes across branding associated with last year's kick-off meeting theme in a program that what would otherwise be valuable to them.   The only branding we use for our learning objects is our company logo.  We do not use sub-brands.  When we do need to brand something, we try to do it through the marketing and promotional materials rather than in the learning object itself.
5. Create "stand alone" learning objects.   Avoid referring to specific dates or mentioning key contacts' phone numbers or email addresses inside a learning object.  As soon as you turn the page on the calendar or the key contact person moves on, your learning object becomes out of date.   Keep date-specific or person-specific information separate from learning content.  If you want to have a module introduced by a senior executive to give it context or heightened importance, create a video of the executive delivering the introductory message as its own learning object. Then offer both introduction and the learning module together as a curriculum. If that executive changes jobs or moves on, the video can be retired, but the learning module can continue to be used. 

Here are some things my team does to decrease rework:

1. Conduct peer reviews.   It is always helpful to have a second set of eyes look at your work.  Particularly when working under deadline pressure (as we all do).   Our instructional designers conduct peer reviews for each other to provide feedback on design elements and look for glitches, errors and typos.  An added benefit to this process is that the designers build off each others ideas in future projects.
2. Conduct walk throughs.   While it is standard practice for us to conduct design reviews with our internal clients, sometimes they don't give their full attention to the documents or prototypes they are sent for review.   In order to get them to focus on key elements of a design, we will schedule walk throughs with them.   This way the designer can lead the reviewer through a script, a storyboard, beta version, or draft, making sure that appropriate focus is given to every element that needs to be reviewed.

Contemplating Learning Content Reuse

In the last few weeks of July, our department worked on pulling together information to prepare our submission for the 2013 ASTD State of the Industry Survey.  Each year through this survey, the ASTD research team captures and compiles information on industry trends and prepares a report that gets published in November.   The report includes information in categories such as learning costs, hours, staffing ratios, content distribution and delivery methods.    All of this information is valuable, but there is one section of the report that has been occupying my mind quite a bit lately.   It is the section on the Reuse Ratio.

The Reuse Ratio is defined as the ratio of learning hours used to learning hours available, or if you prefer, learning hours consumed to learning hours provided.  Either way, this is an efficiency measure that has direct impact on learning costs.   In the 2012 State of the Industry Report, the Reuse Ratio for all respondents was reported as 53:1.  The trend has shown that the reuse ratio has fallen over the last four years while the cost per learning hours used has increased.   In preparing our data for the survey submission this year, we calculated our reuse ratio to be a little more than 8:1, which is alarmingly below the Industry benchmarks.

So what does it mean?

I’ve been thinking about this a lot in the context of the work that our Learning & Development team does and the state of affairs in my company.   We have gone through a tremendous amount of change over the last few years necessitating the creation of a lot of new, targeted learning.  So far in 2013, my instructional design team has already outpaced the number of new courses and learning objects created in all of 2012 – and 2012 was a very busy year!  We expect the level of change to continue for quite some time in the foreseeable future.   It will be important for us to increase our content reuse ratio as I see this as an indication that we are using our budget and human resources as efficiently as possible.

So what do we do?

There are three key actions that we are undertaking:

Retire unused learning objects in our learning management system – We have a lot of old, outdated content in our learning management system that has not sustained its relevance.   Getting rid of these items will reduce the “hours provided” part of the equation to give us a more realistic picture of our ratio based on content that is actually important to our business needs.   Granted, this doesn’t save us on cost or development time, but it will add clarity to the picture.

Increase reuse of key learning content – Rather than approach every learning need as a new instructional design project, we have a team of Curriculum Managers who are curating content.  They have created curriculum maps for key subject areas that are important to supporting successful employee and business performance.   The maps outline a general progression through the content areas to help employees take accountability for their own development.

Increase reuse of learning assets – Because the high rate of change is expected to continue in our business, we recognize that the curriculum maps won’t be able to address every learning need.   We will still have an active pipeline of learning projects that will require some form of instructional design.  To that end, we have instituted a Digital Asset Management Library so we can capture and share assets such as activities and scenarios that go into the creation of learning solutions.   This won’t directly impact our content reuse ratio, but it will help us to be more efficient and cost effective in design.  And if we reuse our best assets to create learning objects that are relevant and useful, they will get used.  This will increase the “hours used” part of the equation, which will improve our overall ratio.

Three Angles of Approach for Instructional Design Reviews

In a world where most e-learning development is rapid e-learning development, one of the design process elements that could be easily overlooked is the design review. Instructional Designers and Course Developers who are challenged with getting new modules out the door as quickly as possible to meet a business need may be tempted to skip design reviews as they try to crunch their project timelines down by a few days. But this is a risky proposition. Experience shows that the chances the developer got everything right the first time are slim to none. Skipping design reviews might seem like a great way to save time, but pushing modules out without them may diminish learning and create rework.

Design reviews don’t have to cause project delays if they are planned properly. Anyone who is working to develop a course against a tight deadline will have a pretty good handle on what is going to be done by when. The key is to use this information to schedule design reviews as early on as possible. This will lock in the reviewers and also create additional incentives to keep the project on track. Don’t worry about unforeseen circumstances that might jeopardize readiness by the review date. Put a stake in the ground! The worst that could happen is that the review meetings will need to be postponed and rescheduled.

The bigger issue is: who needs to be involved in the design reviews? Ideally, as few people as possible but reviewers have to be able to cover all the necessary angles. There are three key ones to consider:

Content – Subject matter experts should weigh in on whether or not the content covered in the module is accurate. Since most instructional designers will work with subject matter experts while developing a course, this should be the easiest reviewer to secure.

Learners - Even if the content is accurate, it may not necessarily be relevant. A learning partner who is familiar with the target audience can help by answering questions such as: Is there content missing that the audience might need? Is there content included that could be dropped? Is the module coming across in a way that is clear and motivating to the target audience? Getting questions like these answered during the review process will help pilot tests go more smoothly.

Learning – There is more to learning than just communicating content. The module has to be instructionally sound. A peer review by another instructional designer will ensure the objectives are being met and the learning activities lead to intended outcomes.

And of course, any additional set of eyes is helpful for catching errors, typos or technical glitches.

Two Years and Still Growing

Today is the second anniversary of the launch of Many Ways to Learn. I never thought there would be much interest in a blog about workplace learning, but here we are two years later. When I talk about my work among friends and family, everyone runs the other way. But this blog does have a modest following, and the connections I’ve made through it have been enriching both personally and professionally. Feedback indicates people are gaining something by reading it, which makes it worthwhile to continue.


Two years ago, I started writing this blog as part of a personal experiment. I was not using social media tools at all. As a learning professional, I felt it was important to understand these tools. I wanted to see if they held any promise for use alongside our formal learning offerings. I didn’t expect they would, but I was wrong. They certainly proved to hold promise. I slowly began to introduce them to my team members. I have a creative bunch so I wanted to see what ideas and suggestions they might come up with for usage in service to our learners. At the time, terms like informal learning, social learning, personal knowledge management, and content curator were not part of our day-to-day working vocabulary. I’m happy to say they are today. In November 2009 I really began seeing the possibilities. I wrote this blog entry: Web 2.0 Learning Shift to describe what I saw happening. Since then we have implemented a number of non-traditional learning solutions at my company to give our learners alternatives to classroom training or self-paced e-learning. Do we have all our learning opportunities embedded directly in the workstream? No, we don’t. Do we have more learning opportunities in the workstream than we did two years ago? I am proud to say yes, we do.

Here are a few more YES/NO situations to describe the current state of learning at my company.

YES – people are having workplace discussions and sharing resources though social media.

NO – not everyone in the company is on board.

YES – we have a formal social media policy.

NO – we don’t block people from using twitter or facebook at work.

YES - we do have our own internal social media network (through Yammer) available to employees worldwide.

NO – our senior leaders are not all active in our social media network.

YES - we do have online discussion groups and virtual meet-ups to promote learning.

NO - we can't measure what people are learning through these groups, but their discoveries are evident.
YES – we are conducting classes virtually.

NO – we are not using virtual reality tools like Second Life.

YES - our virtual classes are interactive discussions.

NO - our virtual classes are not passive PowerPoint webinars.

YES – we do have wiki-based tools and activities that allow learners to build off each other’s ideas.

NO – we don’t have control over what people post or the edits they make – but it has not been a problem.

YES – we have created learning environments in SharePoint to help our employees manage their learning experiences.

NO – they don’t all take to SharePoint like a duck takes to water.

YES – we do offer just-in-time access to workplace answers through our knowledge management system.

NO – we have not retired our learning management system.

YES – our employees are accessing (some) audio and video content through mobile devices.

NO – the mobile content does not mainly originate from the learning department.

YES – we do capture and share best practices through social media tools.

NO – our social media tools are not the most commonly used means of sharing best practices.

YES – we have increased our employees’ ability to learn through informal means.

NO – we haven’t stop designing and delivering Instructor-led classroom training.

YES – we develop a lot of rapid e-learning programs.

NO – our e-learning programs are not all award winners, but they don’t have to be to be effective.

The last two years have certainly been interesting. They have shown me there are indeed Many Ways to Learn. Through writing this blog and interacting with readers, I’ve discovered a lot and grown quite a bit as a learning professional. I’ve used what I have learned to help my department evolve and to help employees in my company be successful. I also hope this blog has led others to make a few discoveries. Thanks for reading.

What Tools Are Instructional Designers Using These Days?

July has been a busy month for me.  One of the things I've been doing is interviewing candidates for an open Instructional Designer position on my team.   It is great (and a little scary) to see the wealth of talent and experience that is available.   I've enjoyed the interviews.   It is such a pleasure to be able to talk about instructional design and workplace learning with other people who are passionate about it.   Most people run the other direction when I start talking about these things.

Below is a list of tools created from the resumes I received in response to my job posting.   If you're looking for someone to help you with any of these tools, I've got a lead for you.

Use the Six Disciplines to Create Breakthrough Learning

The Six Disciplines of Breakthrough Learning is a terrific book for anyone who is interested in fostering effective workplace learning. Now in its second edition, it is about time I got around to writing about it. The 6D concepts and the approach outlined in the book have helped me and my team create successful learning experiences that have led to real behavior change and improved business performance.

There are few surprises in the book for a well-trained or well-read learning professional. The magic is in how it has all been put together. Cal Wick, Roy Pollock, and Andy Jefferson have done a great job synthesizing quite a lot of theory and research which they have distilled into a practical, no-nonsense framework for learning design. They create a clear, easy-to-follow road map for learning professionals and business leaders alike. Their company (Fort Hill) has also developed some great tools, such as the Results Engine® (an updated version of the Friday5s® tool that I wrote about in this 2009 blog post), to support the later stages of the 6D model, where the activities required for genuine learning are usually tougher to sustain.

What are the Six Disciplines? Just that: disciplines. What a great word for us in the workplace learning field. Even when we know the right thing to do, workplace issues such as competitive pressure, speed-to-market needs, and budget constraints sometimes tempt us to abandon good intentions or compromise our standards. We need to maintain the discipline needed to create a complete learning experience, one that will lead to desired business results.

So here are the 6Ds:

D1 – Define Business Outcomes – D1 reminds us that we need to start with the end in mind. We need to look upstream to what the business is trying to accomplish, not just look at learner needs in a vacuum.

D2 – Design the Complete Learning Experience – This is my favorite concept in the book. We need to attend to all phases of learning, (Prepare, Learn, Transfer, Achieve) not just create a course or a learning event.

D3 – Deliver for Application – If we truly want learners to do something different as a result of what they have learned, we need to make sure they understand the context of what they are learning, make learning relevant to their needs, and ensure they have the opportunity for practice and feedback.

D4 – Drive Learning Transfer – This is where the rubber meets the road. Can learners repeat what they have learned in the work environment? Will they have opportunity to use the skills? Will they be motivated to do so? Will they have the support of their managers and peers? All of this must be considered in the Prepare phase, so that when learners get to the Transfer phase, the mechanisms to support learning transfer will be in place and working properly.

D5 – Deploy Performance Support – Closely aligned with learning transfer is having the performance support to sustain motivation. At the very least, this means learners have the support of their manager. At best, they have job aids, performance support tools, and receive coaching to help them during the Achieve phase.

D6 – Document Results – Of course, it is important to measure performance. It is important for learners, their managers, the learning department, and business leaders to know what is working, what is not, and what the impact is to the business.

I encourage you to pick up a copy of this book and begin practicing the 6Ds. Also, check out the Fort Hill Company website for more information on the 6Ds and the Results Engine® transfer tool.

Addressing Stakeholders Who “Want It Now” #LCBQ

The Learning Circuits Big Question for April is: How do we address the “I want it now” demand from stakeholders?

It is easy to see where this question comes from: Business leaders can mull over strategy decisions for a while, but once they decide on a course of action, they want to move forward as quickly as possible. You, as their learning partner, will want to accommodate the need for speed, but the demand for quick action often does cause some tension. Having worked in corporate learning for 20+ years, this is a situation that I have often faced. Assuming there is a real learning need behind the request, there are usually three questions that need to be answered before you can respond to your stakeholder.

1. Can the target audience learn what they need to learn quickly?  For example, there is a difference between helping a transaction-oriented salesperson to learn a new procedure for processing a sales order vs. helping her learn how to become a consultative seller. You can get started on the latter quickly, but it will take time, practice and experience to fully achieve the learning outcome.
2. Will you have access to the content, tools and Subject Matter Experts needed for a quick turnaround?  Much of the work that instructional designers do is dependent on having what is needed to develop the learning solution. Sometimes training requests come along too early in a project to be actionable. When that happens, the good news is that you are at the table with the team working on the project in its early stages. This gives you the opportunity to influence the development of tools and communication materials in ways that can be helpful to learning.
3. Can other learning projects be delayed or put on hold while the learning team is redeployed to take care of this urgent request?   Most of us work in environments where there are multiple projects going on at the same time. Business leaders and/or learning governance boards will sometimes have to intervene to help the learning team sort out the priorities.

If the answer to these questions is “Yes” then go ahead, tell your stakeholder, “You can have that right away!”

Guilty of Learning Malpractice

Last week's #lrnchat discussion was on learning malpractice.  I love to join these Thursday night chats as often as I can. Unfortunately, I was unable to make this one.  What a pity.  From the looks of the transcript it was a lively discussion.  I definitely would have been able to contribute to this one.   After 22 years in workplace learning, I have seen just about every form of learning malpractice imaginable.  And I have to admit, that I am guilty of a few transgressions myself over the years.   Let's face it, at times Corporate America can be a tough place for a learning professional.   Business leaders often expect you to take their underperforming employees and run them through a training session as if it was a car wash. They want them to come out on the other side all squeaky clean and ready to go. In this type of environment, it is hard not to commit a few sins.

I wish I could say that after 22 years, I no longer commit learning malpractice. But the best I can do is tell you that I no longer commit felonies.  I'm still guilty of a few misdemeanors now and again.  Sometimes I do things that I know I shouldn't, just to please my internal clients.   My rationale is that if I commit a minor violation to appease a few key stakeholders, it creates some goodwill that helps us build our relationship.  This way I can get closer to them, their problems, their business issues, and their employee development needs.   I'm willing to make small trade-offs to be able to consult with them on the bigger issues where we can really help them with their business.   Some of you might be cringing as you read this.  You might be thinking, "As learning professionals we should never compromise our standards."  But others of you will relate to what I'm saying.   With the competitive pressures, pace of change, and depletion of resources through downsizings we all face, we do have to pick and choose our battles.

So here I write my latest confession:

Our flagship program is a three-month long onboarding for new sales executives that we first implemented in 2009.  I'm very proud of the work my team has done on this program. It is well designed and well-facilitated.  The metrics for program graduates have consistently been in the desired performance range.  When we first introduced this program, we did all the right things. We thoroughly analyzed the audience, work tasks, and expected outcomes.   We were thoughtful in how we set up our virtual learning environment.  We were diligent in our approach to developing and selecting learning activities.  We had lively discussion and healthy conflict among our stakeholders that helped to strengthen our decision-making.   All of this paid off as the program proved to be both effective, and cost-effective.   That is until this summer when we began rapidly transforming our organization and our workforce.   Suddenly, the number of participants enrolled in each new class began to jump through the roof.  And now we are seeing quite a variety of individuals many of them with very different skills and experiences than that of our original profile.  We had to make quite a lot of adjustments on the fly.   We've made changes to content and activities.  We've increased the maximum class size from 15 to 22 and added 25% more classes to the schedule.  Even with the additional classes we are still hitting our newly raised ceiling of 22 every time.  We've pressed new people into service to facilitate the additional classes with less preparation than we would like them to have had.

On all these counts, I'm guilty of learning malpractice.  But I throw myself on the mercy of the court.   I stayed as closely aligned to my business leaders as I could.  I wanted to stay alert and prepared to make changes as needed, but they just came too fast and too furiously this year.  Our onboarding program now resembles one of my local roads after a Connecticut winter: broken up with cracks and pot holes.  We've been filling them in as best we can, but it is still a bumpy ride for our learners right now.   In November, we are reconvening the team to discuss repaving the road for 2011.  I hope I'll be done serving my time by then.

The Pros and Cons of Podcasting

I have never been one to get too excited over podcasts.   I know there are a good number of people who like to listen to audio content on their mobile devices or while driving in the car.  Me?  I prefer to listen to something like Pink Floyd or the Grateful Dead when I have a little down time, so podcasts have never been my thing.   That being said, they do have their place among delivery media.  And since most of my learners are sales and service professionals who do spend a lot of time in their cars, I have had my team create a podcast library of downloadable resources for "learning on the go."

This week in the class that I'm currently taking at FSU, we discussed the benefits and limitations of podcasts as a medium for learning.  As good collaborative learners do, we created some very nice lists.   I thought they had a lot of good points, so I'm reprinting them here:

Potential Benefits of Using Audio Podcasts 

1. Portability e.g. easy to load on an iPod or similar device and consume content on the fly
2. Well suited for distributing content that doesn't require visual support e.g. facts, opinions, and the like
3. Good for audiences who need information on the fly - salespeople and service people who spend a lot of time in cars can listen as they drive
4. Good for content that is audio-oriented, such as learning a language, subtle or sensitive communication topics, learning how to play music, or create sound effects
5. Make better sense of computer images when accompanied by audio by providing an explanation
6. Encourage deeper thought when providing audio instruction by asking questions. (Not a benefit unique to audio podcasts?)
7. Audio-only podcasts can be fairly inexpensive to produce (microphone, software)
8. Audio-only podcasts allow students who have dyslexia the opportunity to learn material without being hindered by the challenges of reading words on a page (this was from our reading of Harris and Park, 2008)
9. Can Provide specific customization of information to be learned by the learner as a stand alone, or in addition to original instruction
10. Audio materials can be presented in multiple languages, to target a larger, more diverse audience of learners
11. Podcasts can be used to reinforce lecture concepts
12. Students can work at their own pace, starting and stopping when necessary, and replaying key points of the lecture/podcast as they deem necessary
13. Good for relaying repeated information, leaving teachers more time for higher level instruction (i.e. podcast library or museum tour, as mentioned in the Harris and Park article)
14. Podcasts are a medium that teens/younger students can identify with and be motivated to use
15. Because sound effects are accessible in the public domain, you can create a unique environment that matches the sound and feeling of the content being taught fairly inexpensively vs. trying to create a classroom or video experience
16. Hearing a voice and providing an "eye" break is a huge benefit to online learning. With all the book, article, online reading, sometimes it is nice to have a voice and a "eye" break
17. Provides learners the opportunity to review and re-review information an unlimited number of times 

Potential Limitations of Using Audio Podcast

1. Not well suited for complex subjects that necessitate visual support to fully comprehend e.g. mathematics for example
2. Violates Mayer's multimedia effect when not designed correctly
3. Can only be effective for short topics
4. Passive medium
5. Does not support learning if students are not attentive, therefore the audio must keep the student involved, e.g. asking questions (similar to & elaboration of item 4)
6. The loss of non-verbal cues (body language, supportive material)from the speaker may affect the intent of the message/speaker
7. Aural memory is limited in the retention of information, but this can be overcome in audio-only instruction by the learner being able to control the audio presentation by pausing and replaying the information
8. Audio files take up a lot of space on a computer's hard drive
9. Some people are visual/kinesthetic learners, that is they learn primarily by seeing someone do something or doing it themselves
10. Audio output quality is only as good as its weakest component, which is often the system's speakers. It was pointed out that high quality sound it a necessity for us aging listeners and for those with other hearing losses
11. Lacks feedback. Learner is unable to ask questions or clarify information being presented
12. If targeted toward a specific audience, some previous knowledge of the subject matter is assumed(Difficult to gear toward a universal audience)
13. Does not allow for multiple representations of the material, only auditory
14. Audio only podcasts may be longer than necessary if using words to describe a concept that a picture could teach faster
15. Requires an audio output device, which may not be present on all computers (no speakers on some public-access machines in offices, libraries, etc.)
16. If the learner is not as proficient in the spoken language, it could be limiting especially when accents and territorial dialect are added in to the mix
17. Does not allow for nonverbal cues (already listed in item 6)

This list comes to you courtesy of the Fall 2010 EME6415 class at Florida State University.

Instructional Design is Not Dying

Instructional Design has been on mind lately. Having just finished reflecting on my first year experiences as a blogger and as a member of the web 2.0 learning community, I realize that a lot of my focus over the last year has been on informal learning topics. I started this blog as a way to explore web 2.0 tools, partly to educate myself, and partly to contribute and share what I could with others about my experiences as I attempt to integrate these technologies into workplace learning. This got me thinking about how little of my explorations have been focused on instructional design for formal learning. Then I read this blog post Is Instructional Design Dying? over at the eLearning Authority this morning which compelled me to write this tonight.

I’ve been working in learning & development roles for a number of years. First and foremost I consider myself to be an instructional designer. And while I admit that I no longer spend as much of my time involved in rigorous design these days, it informs everything that I do. Yes, we are in the non-linear age of elearning programs and informal learning but does that mean we should abandon systems thinking? Just because we develop elearning rapidly, it doesn’t mean we have to do it poorly. Don’t we still need to analyze tasks and learner behavior to know what needs to go into a rapid elearning course? And even though we may not be able to prescribe the path our learners take as they pursue their learning goals through informal means, can’t we still be thoughtful and creative about what we place in their path?

Like many who are using rapid elearning tools today, early in my career my approach to instructional design was based on intuition. Trial and error was my course development process. I remember my excitement when I first encountered the Dick & Carey model. It allowed me to be more deliberate in my approach to design and my results were consistently better.

Some people criticize the Dick & Carey model for being too rigid and inflexible for learning in today’s world. To those people I would say, “It’s a model.” It is a representation of our reality, but it is not our reality. It is up to us as learning professionals to bring insight, flexibility, and creativity to the design process.

A few years ago, I gave away my copy of The Systematic Design of Instruction - a great reference book on how to apply the Dick & Carey model - to a new staff member in my department who was just beginning her career as a course developer. Earlier this year, I bought a new copy for myself because even though things are changing, it is still important to my work.  But if I come across another enthusiastic novice course developer, I just might give this copy away too.

Deciding between Formal and Informal Approaches

Our department has recently gone through - let's call it a bit of a "refresh."   As a result of this, we have been lucky enough to fill three positions with people who have instructional design skills and experience.   This is a nice supplement to the folks who are doing course development work in the department already.   Now we have a nice mix of experienced and novice developers.  We have some full-time instructional designers.  We also have instructors and facilitators who do some part-time course development work.   In any event, with the three new additions I'm excited by the capabilities we now have on the team.   Now I'm trying to figure out the best way to help the new people learn about our company and our processes. At the same time, I need to consider how we can do more to develop our novice course developers.

When our department was first formed (a few transformation projects ago!), we set up an instructional design standards committee.   I chair this committee.  Our work thus far has focused on outlining a course development process to ensure quality, consistency and efficiency for the learning programs that are produced in our department.   To that end we created a Course Development Map which breaks down our internal instructional design process into four phases:  proposal, design and development, implementation, and course maintenance.   The map outlines the steps in each phase and includes links to tools that can be used to complete some of the steps.   Along with the Course Development Map, we also created an Instructional Design Standards performance support tool to help specifically with developing instruction.  It includes guidelines for writing and evaluating objectives, suggestions for activities and interactions, skins for e-learning, templates for ILT workbooks and leaders' guides, and guidelines for fonts and graphics that align with our corporate branding and color schemes.

Okay, so here is my dilemma:

Our new instructional designers are all enthusiastic about contributing to the team.  All three have asked to join the committee.  We already have sufficient representation from each of the sub-teams in our department.  I'm concerned that if these new people join, the committee will become too large an ineffective.  This got me thinking: our process and standards are already in place.  We do tweak them from time-to-time based on feedback collected during various design projects, but we haven't made any major process changes in a while.  Perhaps we no longer need the top-down approach.  Instead of the committee, we might form a Community of Practice that would allow everyone to contribute and share best practices around instructional design and learn informally.  Our novice designers could learn from our experts; our new employees could learn from our tenured ones.

But is this really a better approach?  The new employees and novices might need more structure and defined learning goals.

It seems that my situation mirrors the discussions about whether or not to use formal or informal learning.   Similar to the tools created by our committee, formal learning is a great way to help novices learn the ropes.  It is structured, with clearly defined outcomes, timelines, and measures.  With this approach we can be sure our new designers will learn the things we want them to know.  On the other hand, the Community of Practice approach promotes informal learning.  It is natural, fluid and voluntary.  The outcomes are not as clearly defined but that may encourage deeper investment, learning beyond our minimum requirements, and creation of new knowledge.

 So, if you were in my place what would you do?

New Skills for Instructional Designers

The annual Learning Solutions 2010 Conference put on by Learning Solutions Magazine and the eLearning Guild was held this week in Orlando.   Think of it as sort of a "spring break for elearning geeks."  Unfortunately it was not in the cards for me to attend.   But no matter; in this age of social media, it is pretty easy to pick up the highlights of an event through twitter, YouTube, SlideShare, etc.  So the only thing you really miss is the opportunity to say hello to friends that you haven't seen in a while, or colleagues that you have only met on line.

One of the sessions that caught my attention was titled New Skills for Instructional Designers presented by Cammy Bean, Koreen Olbrish, and Ellen Wagner.  They introduced a fresh take on the skills used by instructional designers depicted in the four-quadrant diagram above.  It incorporates Learning & Performance, Creativity, Technology, and Business Insight to describe the role.  Essentially, their message is "to be an instructional design professional, you need to attend to all four quadrants."

I was able to piece together a few items related to their presentation:

Here is a description of the four quadrants, courtesy of Claudine Caro's blog:

I = Learning, Pedagogy & Assessment

• Adult learning theory
• Instructional Design theory
• Assessment and quizzes
• Curriculum Design
• Defining learning objectives

 D = Creativity & Production

• Facilitation/ instructors
• Writing
• Video Production
• Audio
• Graphics Design
• Games Design
• Animation

 I = Business Intelligence

• Business needs assessment/analysis
• ROI
• A seat at the C-level table
• Project Management

T = Architecture & Implementation

• Authoring Tools
• Programming
• SCORM / AICC
• Learning Management Systems
• QA
• Tracking and Reporting

Check out the presentation deck from their session, courtesy of SlideShare:

New Skills for Instructional Designers

 And check out Ellen Wagner delivering her segment of the presentation on the Secret Handshakes of Instructional Design, courtesy of YouTube.

I thank these folks for their great presentation. I think we are going to be seeing and hearing more discussion about this set of skills in the near future.

Doing It Right: Instructional Design without Cutting Corners

What a pleasure it is when you are able to do a learning project the "right way."    This week, my team and I finished training for a group of managers in one of our business segments.   This was a project that we initiated in the fall.  It was carried out according to plan and within the next few weeks, we will have our final set of measures on its overall impact.

When I say we did this the "right way," what I mean is that we were able to follow our instructional design process without having to cut corners along the way.  You might be thinking, "Well, don't you always do that?"  But in truth, we are often forced to make compromises on our projects to meet business deadlines, work within budget constraints, or cater to the expectations of a particularly influential business leader.   But on this project, we were not constrained by any of those things.

The project was to provide training to approximately 35 managers who were mostly long-tenured and experienced, but who have recently had to deal with significant changes to their job.  Here is how it went:

Analysis - We originally approached the head of this business unit to get an understanding of the outcomes that were expected from the changes that were put in place, and to get his perspective on the impact he thought these changes would have on his managers.  Next, we had two rounds of discussions with four managers who were part of the target audience.  After the first meeting with them, we drafted an analysis report to feed back to them our understanding of the audience characteristics, the job, and the key tasks that were changing.  In our second meeting with the managers, we validated and fine-tuned the information gathered in the first meeting.  After that, we presented our analysis findings and a training design proposal, including a draft of the agenda and objectives, to the business unit leader and the Vice Presidents into whom the targeted training audience reported.   They provided some additional insights that we incorporated into our agenda and we were ready to begin designing the program.

Design & Development -  We chose a blended approach including two online assessments and an e-learning module as pre-work, a three-day classroom learning event, and follow-up learning opportunities made available through a SharePoint site set up specifically for this class.  The design process for the classroom event was relatively quick and easy.  Most of the training needs could be addressed with existing material that had been used for other programs.  There were a few key segments that would be new, but they were all on topics that were easy to research.  Finding appropriate content was not an issue.  Designing learning activities that would be effective at making the learning points was a little more challenging. But that is certainly a part of the job that my team enjoys doing.

Pilot & Revisions - Since our total audience was relatively small (at 35 managers) we did not really have the opportunity to conduct a full blown pilot.  We broke the audience into three delivery groups and viewed our first delivery in December as a quasi-pilot.   Overall it went well, but as with any new program for a new audience, there was room for improvement.  We huddled up afterwards, examined our level one feedback, talked to a few of the participants and observers, updated our design document, and made some adjustments for our second and third deliveries.

Implementation - By the time our second delivery rolled around, we were confident that we had the right program to meet their needs.   We were clear on which segments needed the most support and which would meet with resistance, and we prepared ourselves accordingly.  For all three classroom events, we had one of the Vice Presidents with us during delivery.  We carved out a small but important segment for them to specifically deliver, and for the rest of the time they were with us, they were able to provide clarification or join in the discussion as we covered the other items on the agenda.   Their presence and involvement was a key factor in the program's success.

Evaluation & Follow-up - For this program, we used level one (participant reaction) and level three (behavioral change) measurements.  The level one measurements were taken directly at the end of the classroom sessions.  For the level three measurements, we use the Friday5s goal management system over a ten-week period after training.  Each participant was asked to set two specific goals at the end of their classroom session.  These goals get input into the Friday5s online tool where the class participants can go to receive online coaching and track their progress.  Also, we continue the momentum created in the classroom by allowing participants to connect with each other after the event through a SharePoint site that was set up specifically for this program. 

On the whole this was a very satisfying project.  We got to help our managers and help our business by doing what we do best: creating a learning opportunity that met specific needs for a specific audience.   And, we got chance to do it right!

Tips for the New Year Part 2: Train-the-trainer

Last week in Many Ways to Learn, I discussed how Learning & Development departments that are operating in a “leaner and meaner” mode after 2009 will need to get creative this year about how to handle tactical functions such as course development and delivery. Last week’s blog entry covered tips on how to manage an outsourced e-Learning project. This week’s topic is how to conduct a train-the-trainer session for new or occasional trainers.


Train-the Trainer

Throughout my career, I have managed a number of projects in which it was necessary to have people who were not training professionals deliver training. Without proper preparation, projects like these could be a disaster. But by taking appropriate steps to prepare individuals who are selected to be trainers on how to deliver the training, these projects can be both successful and rewarding.

Fortunately for me, a number of years back I had the privilege of earning the credential of Master Certified Instructor from Achieve Global. This means I have been deemed qualified to certify others to deliver programs from their leadership development line. Over the years, I have conducted a number of Achieve Global certification programs. The techniques I learned from the training they provided me and through the experience of delivering these certifications has been invaluable to me. I have used them over and over again on projects in which I have had to rely on a contingent group of inexperienced facilitators to deliver training.

Here are some of the key activities that have helped me to make those occasional trainers successful:

Establish Criteria for Identifying Trainers – This will have a huge impact on the success or failure of your project. People who you are relying on to deliver training must be willing, able, and available to do the job. Being able means hey have appropriate subject matter expertise, presentation, and facilitation skills. Being willing means they are enthusiastic about the role. (There is nothing worse than attending training delivered by a reluctant trainer.) Finally, being available means that they can commit to delivering the number of programs you need them to deliver within the timeframe identified for your project.

Provide a Solid Package of Course Materials – Expert trainers who have knowledge of a given topic can often get away with “winging it.” That is not the case with novices. They will need a complete package of training materials that are clearly written and easy to follow in order to be successful. This should include an instructor guide, participant materials, handouts, job aids, and other media as appropriate.

Conduct a Modeling Session – One of the best ways for people to learn what is expected of them is to provide them a good model of successful delivery. Your train-the-trainer candidates should first experience the program they will be asked to deliver from the point-of-view of a participant. This will give them a good frame of reference for understanding the expected outcomes of each activity or discussion so they can figure out how best to manage them.

Review Facilitation Techniques – In addition to understanding the content they will be delivering, it is just as important for your new trainers to be able to create a comfortable learning environment. Cover techniques such as how to establish and uphold ground rules, how to question and listen to participants, how to provide verbal and non-verbal feedback, and how to control distractions that may occur during delivery.

Provide Practice and Feedback Opportunities – Train-the-trainer candidates should have at least one opportunity to practice delivering a segment of the training and to receive feedback on their practice delivery. Ideally, they should have a second opportunity so they can hone their skills and address any issues uncovered during their first practice. Typically, for a program that could be delivered in one day or less, I would structure a train-the-trainer session as a three-day event: On day one I would conduct the model session and go over all the materials in the training package. On day two, for the first part of the day I would have each candidate deliver a brief segment from the program. The focus of their delivery would mainly be on getting across the program content. They would receive feedback from me and from each other. For the latter part of the day, I would focus on facilitation techniques. On day three, they would be expected to deliver a longer segment of the program incorporating some of the facilitation techniques covered on day two. This approach usually works well, but can be challenging if you have a large group. The alternatives are to eliminate one practice or to break the candidates up into smaller groups and conduct several train-the-trainer sessions.

End by Scheduling Deliveries – The last thing I do before ending a train-the-trainer session is to get the new trainers to commit to deliveries. Depending upon the parameters of your project, this can be done by assigning them delivery dates, presenting them with a list of dates to sign up for, or giving them a window in which to schedule their own delivery dates. This approach capitalizes on enthusiasm before momentum for the project wanes.

I have found these train-the-trainer practices to be very effective in preparing non-trainers for classroom delivery. A variation of this approach can be used for preparing people for virtual classroom delivery as well. One significant difference would be to replace the practice deliveries with one-on-one or small group online coaching sessions. It is difficult for a large group to stay focused on line as each person tries out polling features and annotation tools on your virtual classroom delivery platform. It is much more effective when this is done with only one to three people at a time.

If you have additional suggestions on how to structure a train-the-trainer event for new or occasional trainers, please add your comments below.

Tips for the New Year Part 1: Outsourcing e-Learning

2009 was a tough year for most of us in Learning & Development. The economy forced us once again to do some belt tightening. It seems that every time we are absolutely sure we can’t possibly do any more with any less, we end up finding a way to do just that. But with the New Year having arrived, there is again reason to be optimistic.

Predictions indicate the economy will regain its strength. This means business leaders will be shifting their priorities from reducing operating expenses onto strategies for developing profitable growth such as driving innovation and renewed customer focus.

Learning & Development and Talent Management departments will be called upon to devise and execute the Human Resource component of these business strategies. But with these departments operating in a “leaner and meaner” mode after 2009, tactical functions such as course development and delivery are more likely to be outsourced or temporarily handled by other members of the workforce. So this week and next, Many Ways to Learn is offering some practical advice on how to approach these situations. This week’s blog entry will cover tips on how to manage an outsourced e-Learning project. Next week’s will address how to conduct a train-the-trainer session for new or occasional trainers.

Outsourcing e-Learning

Whether you are considering outsourcing e-Learning development for the first time or looking to supplement in-house development in order to keep up with demand, here are a few things that I have found to be critical to keeping a project on track:

Assign Internal and External Project Managers – In order to have the project run smoothly, you want to make sure you have a single-point of accountability with your e-Learning vendor. They should assign a “go to” person who will accept your input, answer your questions, address your problems, and provide status updates at regular intervals throughout the project. Alternately, your e-Learning vendor should have a similar “go-to” person inside your company to coordinate internal resources and manage communications on your end. Ideally, this person should be an instructional designer.

Hold a Project Kick-off Meeting – Once you have accepted a proposal and agreed to work with a particular e-Learning vendor, you should hold a project kick-off meeting. The meeting should be attended by all parties who have a role in the launch of the program. On the vendor side, this should include the project manager, script writer, graphic artist, course developer, and technical support person. On the customer side, meeting attendees should include the project manager, subject-matter experts, Learning Management System administrator, technical support person, and any other relevant parties who need to provide input to the vendor.

Agree on an Interface at the Beginning of the Project – The skin or shell in which the e-Learning program will be deployed may not be the first thing on everyone’s mind, but once development work starts, making changes to the interface could cause a chain reaction of changes to other program elements leading to project delays. Some e-Learning vendors will have preferred templates from which you can choose a particular look; others will provide a custom-designed interface. Either way may sure the look is right for your company and your culture before development begins in earnest.

Identify and Distinguish between “Reviewers” and “Approvers” – Once the project gets underway, there will be a series of milestone review points during which your vendor will need to receive approval to move on to the next stage of the project. Typically, approval will be needed for the interface design, overall concept, objectives, script, storyboard, graphics, interactions, narration, and content tests. In my experience, internal reviews with stakeholders and subject-matter experts can often be the cause of project delays. That it is why it is important to clearly identify who must approve each element before moving onto the next phase of the project, versus who are “nice to have” additional reviewers. Don’t lose valuable time waiting for input from someone who is only marginally interested in the outcome of the project.

Schedule and Communicate Your Internal Review Schedule – Expect there to be at least four reviews during the project:

• Script & Storyboard Review 
• Graphics/Interactions Review 
• Narration/Audio Review 
• Final Review

A good e-Learning vendor will provide a uniform template for collecting comments and feedback which should make this process easy. But it is important that anyone who must provide approvals is aware of the deliverable dates so they can set aside ample time for review.

Plan for Testing and LMS Integration – It is a great feeling when you have proceeded through all your project reviews and your vendor delivers the final files for deployment. However, sometimes modules that have functioned perfectly throughout the development process will act differently when published on your Learning Management System. That is why it is important to involve technical support people in your kick-off and to build steps into your project plan for testing and LMS integration.

Use Written Change Orders If Needed – Sometimes the shared vision of the concept that everyone seemed to have after the kick-off meeting does not always hold its course throughout the project. When that happens, it will necessitate changes that are above and beyond the scope of the original project. Your internal reviewers and approvers need to understand the implications of requesting large-scale changes. In those cases, you should have your e-Learning vendor prepare a written change order informing you of what new work needs to be performed, what additional costs it might involve, and an updated project timeline.

I have found that attending to these items can save a lot of time, money and headaches for all concerned. If you have additional advice to share on outsourcing e-Learning, please add your comments below.

Instructional Design: To Degree or not to Degree

While cruising through the blogosphere this week I stumbled upon a debate about whether or not people who practice instructional design should have an advanced degree in the field. The two points of view are well represented in writings by Cammy Bean - Learning Visions (not necessary) and Karl Kapp – Kapp Notes (should have it).

Reading their arguments caused me to reflect on my own career path and choices. I have held a variety of positions in learning & development over the years. On my blog, I identify myself as a “Learning Generalist” but at heart I am an Instructional Designer.

Early in my career I began writing training programs using instincts and intuition. I made instructional design choices that made sense to me about how one would learn and internalize new information or skills. For the most part, I made good choices and my learners were successful. Publications such as Training magazine, T&D (as it is now called) and the InfoLine provided me with an informal “101” education. Later on I supplemented those readings with books on instructional design and courses from Darryl Sink & Associates, Langevin Learning and Bob Pike’s Creative Training Techniques. Through these vehicles and a lot of trial and error I sharpened my skills.

When e-learning appeared on the horizon and I was scared to death. I never was much of a technical person and I was sure my career was over. Eventually, some user-friendly tools came on the market and I was able to avert this crisis by learning how to use Lectora and Articulate Presenter software. It was a new medium but still required sound instructional design.

As my career progressed, I found myself wanting to know more about my chosen field. I decided to pursue a graduate degree in Instructional Systems at Florida State University. Participating in the program had its pros and cons. On the pro side, it opened doors to new resources, sharpened my course development skills, and deepened my understanding of how people learn. I gained a better understanding of what motivates learners and how I could attend to their needs and motivations through instructional design. On the con side, I was a victim of the learning trends. I had to endure every new learning trick, tool and pet project my professors threw at me. But in the end, I am better off for this experience.

The bottom line is that the program has made me a more competent and confident learning professional. What I once did on intuition I now do deliberately and my results are consistently better. My company (which is paying for my education) has benefited greatly. I have success stories to tell about learning projects that I don’t think I would have even attempted prior to participating in the program. I am sought after as a learning strategist inside my company and my career satisfaction is much higher now.

But here’s the thing: Would I have had this success if I jumped right into graduate school early on? I don’t think so. Years of self-development and practical experience helped me to get the most out of the program. So I don’t believe it is necessary to have an advanced degree to be successful in this field… but it sure helps.

Web-based Learning: The Missing Piece

Last week I made a cross-country journey from Connecticut to California to conduct training for a group of managers from our offices on the west coast and in the southwest. All the way out on the plane, I kept thinking, “Everything on this agenda could be handled through virtual classroom training.” That thought was also on my mind during training as we pushed through our first day’s agenda. With each new topic or segment, I was mentally redesigning the program for web delivery:

When our knowledgeable subject matter experts were speaking, I was thinking: they could be reaching more people through a web-based virtual classroom session.

When the managers in the training were sharing best practices, I was thinking: this discussion could be more in depth and have a longer shelf-life if we were doing this in a wiki.

When we covered some of the necessary static content through PowerPoint presentations, I was thinking: this could be repurposed as e-learning and assigned as pre-work.

When we broke the participants into groups for activities in which they had to tackle real business problems, I was thinking: they could have received these as case study assignments, worked on them, and submitted them by uploading them to a class SharePoint site or to our LMS.

In short, at every turn during the day I was reinforcing my belief that by using sound instructional design principles, this whole learning event could be delivered as an equivalent – or even improved – learning experience using web 2.0 tools and virtual classroom technology. Redesigning the program for the web would transform it from a single learning event into a program that could engage the learners for a longer period of time. It would also be scaleable and repeatable for other audiences. The day’s events just reaffirmed that what I have read in the Virtual-ILT research, and what I have experienced in my own web-delivered programs, really can be effective.

Then we went out to dinner.

There were eighteen of us: training participants, facilitators, and subject matter experts. We had a round of drinks at the bar before moving on to our oversized table for dinner. The conversation was lively. Some of it was personal, some of it was job related, and I'm happy to say some of it recapped key learning points from the class that day. At one point I sat back in my chair just to look around and listen to the group. I heard their laughter, their casual remarks, and their informal conversations. I saw the pleasure of relaxed camaraderie on their faces. At that moment I thought, “This is the piece we are still missing.” Our current generation of online learning, collaboration, and web 2.0 tools doesn’t do enough to replicate this part of the learning event. I’m sure they will someday soon. But will they serve beer?

Web 2.0 Learning Shift

A fundamental shift is taking place in the world of corporate learning. Training departments that were primarily focused on developing knowledge and skills by pushing course content out to their target audiences face direct competition from Web 2.0 tools. Many would-be learners no longer wait to sign up for a course to get the information they need. Instead, they turn to the internet using search engines such as Google or Yahoo! (and now bing), or to Wikipedia for quick answers. A number of other factors also point to this being a time for change:

Do More with Less – This has been a corporate rallying cry for decades now and it is not going away. Just when you begin to think that you can’t cinch the belt any tighter, you are asked to punch another hole in it. This is both a budget and a manpower issue, so even if running training courses could still meet the need, this just isn’t feasible.

ILT and eLearning are not the Answer – Been there; done that. People are no longer getting excited by the traditional corporate university model with its catalog of instructor-led training and eLearning courseware.

Remote, Mobile and/or Agile Workers – Offering training in “the office” doesn’t have the same meaning anymore. The number of people working from home, from the road, or from other remote locations continues to increase each year. For these people virtual learning is a natural extension of the virtual workplace.

Social Media Explosion – Like it or not, employees are using social media tools. They are connecting to people outside of their companies and sharing information freely on facebook, twitter, and personal blogs. User created content has become a powerful source of information through these tools.

So where does that leave us?

Well, providing solid content that meets our learners’ needs will always be important, but instead of “courses” or “programs” being central to what we do, we need to think in terms of “environments” and “enablement.” We need to help learners connect to the right resources quickly when they need them – and to each other. Instructional designers and course developers have to make the leap from producing instructor-led training and elearning courseware to embracing a new platform, one on which they can create virtual collaborative learning environments that allow their company’s employees to learn both formally and informally. Learning needs to combine real world experiences with opportunities for reflection, sharing, questioning and refining. Improvements to virtual classroom tools in recent years now allow this to be done effectively.

For many, it is a struggle to make the leap. Creating an environment that enables informal learning requires giving up some control over objectives and measures. By its very nature informal learning will produce its own unintended outcomes. But isn’t it a good thing if people learn more from our design efforts than we put into them?