The E-learning Curve at Edublogs

A e-learning blog focusing on user performance, enhancing skills, knowledge, and organizational development using digitally-mediated learning.

Web 2.0 technologies and learning professionals’ opportunities and challenges: LCBBQ July 2008

July 7th, 2008 · 1 Comment
Learning Circuits Blog Big Question · Learning Professional · knowledge worker · lcbbq · read/write web · web 2.0 · workplace learning

This month’s Learning Circuit Blog Big Question is should learning professionals be leading the charge in the use of Web 2.0 technologies. More precisely:

  • Should workplace learning professionals be leading the charge around these new work literacies?
  • Shouldn’t they be starting with themselves and helping to develop it throughout the organizations?
  • And then shouldn’t the learning organization become a driver for the organization?
  • And like in the world of libraries don’t we need to market ourselves in this capacity?

Should workplace learning professionals be leading the charge around these new work literacies?
The short answer is “Yes, with an if…”. Long answer is “No, with a but…”. Yes, learning professionals should be at the forefront of orienting and guiding knowledge workers in the use of read / write Web technologies. Knowledge work is, at it’s heart, about problem-solving, and knowledge workers are employed to utilize their skills to find solutions to organizational challenges. We can say that knowledge workers are performing at their optimum when they:

  • use their deepest skills
  • work on many projects at the same time
  • know how to allocate their time
  • can multiply the results of their efforts through soft factors such as emotional intelligence and trust (Francis Fukuyama, Manuel Castells).

If Web 2.0 technologies enable knowledge workers to undertake these tasks, I believe that it is in the remit of the learning and development arm of knowledge organizations to support this.
However, given that any such learning interventions are undertaken within organizations, there is a corporate responsibility to ensure that any learning initiatives to support learning about Web 2.0 technologies be endorsed by board-level approval of the program with all that entails, which should include

  1. recognition for the initiative
  2. acknowledgement that it may be difficult to capture metrics on knowledge worker performance enhancement attained through these technologies by more traditional assessment techniques
  3. that the learning programs themselves will probably be non- or informal in character, as these Web 2.0 technologies are by their very nature, non- and informal
  4. implementing Web 2.0 technologies will probably require substantial investments of time, expertise and capital.

Finding solutions to these challenges is difficult, and many organizations may not understand that this domain is too new to be properly understood at this time.

Shouldn’t they be starting with themselves and helping to develop it throughout the organizations?
In my experience, the “throw it over the wall and see where it lands” approach is a non-starter. While learning professionals are typically highly-motivated individuals who expend personal time and effort staying “ahead of the curve” in terms of their own skills and competencies, a “viral approach” to learning in this domain can only have success if the learning professional in question is highly influential within an organization (and probably a C-level executive).

For a “footsoldier” to attempt to modify work practices within a large organization would meet high levels of resistance, particularly from managers who have no desire to change production processes that probably work very well, given the potential disruptions entailed in transitioning to a more collaborative environment.

Shouldn’t the learning organization become a driver for the organization?
Most learning professionals would say “Yes”, most execs would (probably) say “No.”

In my view, organizations function best when the organization’s business goals are aligned with their learning goals; ideally the two should support and drive each other. If learning professionals can persuade the executive team that a Learning organization is an Earning organization, then they will usually receive the support to operationalize innovative learning initiatives.

Like in the world of libraries don’t we need to market ourselves in this capacity?
Yes, yes, and yes again.

If you are familiar with the 1989 motion picture Field of Dreams, you’ll know the mantra of one of the lead characters is “if you build it, they will come.”

Yes, if you build it (the learning initiative) they will come.

But only if they know it’s there.

I believe that it is the responsibility of learning professionals both in an individual as well as in a departmental capacity to broadcast what they do and they services they offer at every opportunity. Without resorting to spin, lies, and weasel words, the only way your voice will be heard in the bustle of the marketplace (whether internally within an organization or externally facing) is to “say it loud, and say it proud” about your learning and development offerings and services.

Use what ever resources are at your disposal to do so, and don’t forget that as a trainer, you’re probably in a position to influence a wider range of individuals in your workplace than those in any other department, except perhaps for Human Resources and ICT.

Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)

1 response so far ↓

  • 1    V Yonkers // Aug 2, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    I couldn’t agree with you more. My current dissertation work is finding that the organizational framework and political climate has a lot to do with what and how workers learn and access knowledge. I am finding that “knowledge” is based on what departments define as knowledge. The “foot soldier” as you term it, can try to advocate all they want, but in the end it only causes tension and frustration from all sides. Changes need to be developed organically throughout the organization, alliegning with organizational strategies and worker’s tasks. Strictly top down and bottom up approaches don’t work unless there is a shift in organizational resources for the change (human, time, financial, and support services).

    This semester, my school transitioned to a new LMS. I have worked in distance learning for 9 years now, using 3 different programs. I have always been comfortable doing so as I felt I had the support of the infrastructure within the organization. Our school changed the infrastructure without changing the support structures needed to implement the change, however. I honestly am considering not ever teaching an online course again at this school, despite the fact I had been doing so for the last 3 years.

    There was no support for students except through the teacher. The help desk was slow in answering student problems. There was no training on using the new system for the students, and teachers were given a standard training that did not address their individual course needs. Faculty were expected to create their own online courses using the content copied from the old system. The old system was completely different than the new one so it would have been simplier to design a course from scratch rather than try to fit the old course into the new format (which many faculty members figured out just as the course began). Being on the “front line”, I felt as if I were the first ones off the boat on the beaches of Normandy. There was nothing I could do but hope to survive the beratings from students, department heads, and ITS. I realized after this experience why so many faculty members don’t integrate technology into their classrooms or want to teach using elearning.

Leave a Comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image