Question:  can you briefly explain the advantage/difference between Captivate and Flash. I can’t seem to find any one place that discusses this.

Well, I’m back from leave and the walls still seem to be standing, so I thought I’d return by responding to E-Learning Curve Blog reader  Marvin Pyle’s query about Flash and Captivate. [As an aside, I assume you’re not the same Marvin who guided my wife and I around the Mayan site of Copán Ruinas in Honduras?]

I can see where the confusion surrounding Flash arises, and I also understand why you’d find it a little difficult to find a site that discusses this. More on the latter, later.

There are a number of facets to any discussion about Flash, Captivate, and why the tools and technologies are important to e-learning. To do justice to the subject, I will address these aspects of the subject over the next few blog posts:

• Background and Context
• Flash Player
• Flash Application
• Flash Platform
• Captivate
• Flash and E-Learning

Background and Context
Adobe Flash (previously Macromedia Flash) is a multimedia platform currently developed and distributed by Adobe Systems. Since its 1996 launch, it has become a very popular tool for adding animation and interactivity to the Web. Flash is the de facto standard tool used to:

• create Web-based animations & advertisements
• run various Web page components (i.e. menu items, drop-down lists)
• integrate streaming video into Web pages
• develop rich Internet applications
• deliver e-learning content over the Web

Flash can manipulate vector and raster graphics, and supports streaming audio and video media delivery. It is programmable via an interpreted scripting language called ActionScript (currently at v3). A range of software products can be used to create and to run Flash content. Examples include the Adobe Flash Player (which is available for most Web browsers, some mobile phones (though significantly not the Apple iPhone) as well as for other electronic devices.

Adobe Flash Player
The Adobe Flash Player is a near-ubiquitous software client used to view animations and movies, either in via Web browser or as a stand-alone player. Typically, the Flash Player runs ShockWave Flash (SWF) and Flash Video (FLV) files that are created and compiled in the Flash authoring tool, in Adobe Flex, and by a number of third party tools. And herein lies the confusion I alluded to earlier: strictly speaking, Adobe Flash is the authoring environment and Flash Player is the virtual machine used to run the Flash files: these terms have become mixed over time, and  "Flash" can now mean either the authoring environment, the player, or the application files.

Flash Player supports for an interpreted scripting language called ActionScript, which is based on ECMAScript. Now in version 3, ActionScript has matured from a pretty loose script syntax to a language that supports object-oriented code.

While originally designed to display 2-dimensional vector animations, the Flash Player has become an environment for running rich internet applications (RIAs), and streaming video and audio. It uses vector graphics to minimize file size and create files that save bandwidth and loading time. Flash is a common format for games, animations, and GUIs embedded into Web pages.

The Flash Player is available as a plugin for recent versions of browsers such as Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Safari and Internet Explorer on a number of platforms.

Next time: The Flash Platform

–

Blogger of the Week

According to the site, they “post information that covers all aspects of e-learning” including:

• An e-learning blog.
• Facilitates collaborative learning between e-learning professionals through its forum.
• Conducts frequent online contests for e-learning professionals.
• Provides free online training and assignments for instructional designers and graphic designers.
• Selects its favorite blog post and blogger from the e-learning blogosphere on a weekly basis.
• Selects active participants in the planet’s forum.

E-Learning Planet select the Blogger of the Week based on the following parameters:

• The number of informative, innovative, and self blog posts in a week
• The number of positive comments from visitors

Previous Bloggers of the Week include Donald Clark, Tony Karrer, and Jay Cross. I’m not sure I deserve to be in such illustrious company, but I’ll take it!

–

Now read on…

I have suggested that a growing number of researchers and learning professionals (Dillon & Hallett, Jonassen, Rosenberg etc) are recognizing the negative affect of what Brown, Collins, & Duguid (1989) call the “breach between learning and use” (p.1) of training interventions in organizations. We have seen that both instructor-led and ‘traditional’ self-paced learning courseware are relatively limited in their application, and are most effective in a restricted range of circumstances. Brown, Collins, & Duguid elaborate:

Many teaching practices implicitly assume that conceptual knowledge can be abstracted from the situations in which it is learned and used. [The authors] argue that this assumption inevitably limits the effectiveness of such practices. Drawing on recent research into cognition as it is manifest in everyday activity, the authors argue that knowledge is situated, being in part a product of the activity, context, and culture in which it is developed and used.

(p.1)

To meet these conditions, we can say that it is appropriate to adapt both pedagogical approaches and the technology resources now available to enhance learners performance.

Marc J. Rosenberg concurs:

Although e-learning began as a new way to deliver training, it cannot remain that way because it is no longer able to adequately support all the learning needs of individuals and organizations by itself – if it every was. E-learning has moved in a new, somewhat unanticipated direction that is not always reminiscent of an instructional framework. To be more influential, e-learning must be reinvented. While continuing to provide a viable instructional option in a formal learning setting, it must also move toward informational and collaborative solutions that focus more prominently on the specific jobs people do. It must move beyond courseware and classrooms and into work. To reinvent e-learning is, in many ways, to reinvent learning itself.

In essence, this means transforming workplace learning, so that learning activities and resources are situated around the learner, their work environment, and their tasks, enabling learners to construct their own knowledge in the context of what resources they need to carry out their work effectively. As David Jonassen says:

In constructivist learning environments, technologies are used to situate learning tasks in a variety of contexts. With video, very rich and engaging contexts can be created.

He asserts that in the traditional organizational approach that

[u]nfortunately, most e-learning replicates the worst features of face-to-face instruction. So, it may be cheaper to “deliver” knowledge over the Internet, but it will not be more effective.

This is commonly known as the systems-based approach to instructional design & development (ISD). A system is a set of elements or components that must integrate to perform a specific function. Every job in an organization is used by the organizational ecosystem to produce a product or output. The product or output is the means by which a organization generates its assets and remains self-supporting.

There are four inputs necessary in every system to produce a product or output:

• People: The workers making up a group and linked by a common activity.
• Material: The raw products which go into the system.
• Technology: The technique for achieving a practical purpose or goal.
• Time: The measured period during which an action or process begins and ends.

In learning and development, this systems-based approach is epitomized by the ADDIE conceptual framework (see Figure 1), most notably refined by Dick & Carey in The Systematic Design of Instruction (1996).

Figure 1. The ADDIE ISD Heuristic

The ADDIE approach has been one of the core tenets of instructional design for the best part of two decades, but curiously, it may not exist! In his article In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model (2003), Michael Molenda undertook a Livingstonian attempt to discover the source for the original reference to the ADDIE model. Molenda’s research uncovered no original reference for the ADDIE model. This lack of an original reference led Molenda to write,

I am satisfied at this point to conclude that the ADDIE Model is merely a colloquial term used to describe a systematic approach to instructional development, virtually synonymous with instructional systems development (ISD). The label seems not to have a single author, but rather to have evolved informally through oral tradition. There is no original, fully elaborated model, just an umbrella term that refers to a family of models that share a common underlying structure.

Hence my suggestion above that ADDIE is more properly labeled a conceptual framework; I would go so far as to say that it could even more accurately be described as a set of heuristics or “rules of thumb” to enable instructional designers from a instructor-led tradition to develop learning content by adhering to the precepts of the systems approach (see Table 1).

Table 1. Formative evaluation is present in each stage of the ADDIE process.

2. Summative evaluation consists of tests designed for criterion-related referenced items and providing opportunities for feedback from the users.

Once they have undergone formative and summative evaluation, learners are encouraged to review and revise the courseware as necessary, until they have successfully passed the proscribed tests

The transactional nature of the systems approach assumes that the very act of communicating information to the supplicant (sorry, learner) results in the output of “learning.”

Adhering to this content development methodology, instructors consider that the channels used to “deliver” knowledge are cognitively neutral and merely replicate and modalities of the classroom – voice-over narration equating to instructor explanation, the screen being equivalent to the overhead projector or blackboard, computer-mediated interaction being the essentially the same as teacher-student interaction, and so on.

By balancing the cognitive load across the learning modalities, it is supposed that knowledge can be effectively delivered, and the student will “learn.” A corollory of this is that the learning delivery channels (visual, audial, text-based, and so forth) themselves have no affect upon the learner’s interpretation of the content, so to all intents and purposes, the “sage on the stage” transforms into the “guide by the side.”

_____________________

References:

Brown, J. S. Collins, C. & Duguid, P. (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning [Internet] Educational Researcher 18(1), pp. 32-42, Jan-Feb 1989. Available from: http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/%7Ejonassen/courses/CLE/index.html [Accessed January 12th 2007]

Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1996). The Systematic Design of Instruction (4th Ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Dillon, P. & Hallett, C. (2001, October). Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem. Cisco Systems white paper.

Exclusive Interview with Professor David Jonassen (2001) IN: elearningpost [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/
exclusive_interview_with_professor_david_jonassen [Accessed 12th January 2007]

Molenda, M. (2003). In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model. [Internet] Available from: http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/
In%20Search%20of%20Elusive%20ADDIE.pdf Accessed 12 May 2008

Rosenberg, M.J. (2001) What Lies Beyond E-Learning? learningcircuits.org e-zine [Internet] Available from: http://www.learningcircuits.org/2006/March/rosenberg.htm Accessed 14th April 2007

–

Now read on.

I have suggested that a growing number of researchers and learning professionals (Dillon & Hallett, Jonassen, Rosenberg etc) are recognizing the negative affect of what Brown, Collins, & Duguid (1989) call the “breach between learning and use” (p.1) of training interventions in organizations. We have seen that both instructor-led and ‘traditional’ self-paced learning courseware is relatively limited in its application, and is most effective in a restricted range of circumstances. Brown, Collins, & Duguid elaborate:

Many teaching practices implicitly assume that conceptual knowledge can be abstracted from the situations in which it is learned and used. [The authors] argue that this assumption inevitably limits the effectiveness of such practices. Drawing on recent research into cognition as it is manifest in everyday activity, the authors argue that knowledge is situated, being in part a product of the activity, context, and culture in which it is developed and used.

(p.1)

To meet these conditions, we can say that it is appropriate to adapt both pedagogical approaches and the technology resources now available to enhance learners performance.

Marc J. Rosenberg concurs:

Although e-learning began as a new way to deliver training, it cannot remain that way because it is no longer able to adequately support all the learning needs of individuals and organizations by itself – if it every was. E-learning has moved in a new, somewhat unanticipated direction that is not always reminiscent of an instructional framework. To be more influential, e-learning must be reinvented. While continuing to provide a viable instructional option in a formal learning setting, it must also move toward informational and collaborative solutions that focus more prominently on the specific jobs people do. It must move beyond courseware and classrooms and into work. To reinvent e-learning is, in many ways, to reinvent learning itself.

In essence, this means transforming workplace learning, so that learning activities and resources are situated around the learner, their work environment, and their tasks, enabling learners to construct their own knowledge in the context of what resources they need to carry out their work effectively. As David Jonassen says:

In constructivist learning environments, technologies are used to situate learning tasks in a variety of contexts. With video, very rich and engaging contexts can be created.

He asserts that in the traditional organizational approach that

[u]nfortunately, most e-learning replicates the worst features of face-to-face instruction. So, it may be cheaper to “deliver” knowledge over the Internet, but it will not be more effective.

This is commonly known as the systems-based approach to instructional design & development (ISD). A system is a set of elements or components that must integrate to perform a specific function. Every job in an organization is used by the organizational ecosystem to produce a product or output. The product or output is the means by which a organization generates its assets and remains self-supporting.

There are four inputs necessary in every system to produce a product or output:

• People: The workers making up a group and linked by a common activity.
• Material: The raw products which go into the system.
• Technology: The technique for achieving a practical purpose or goal.
• Time: The measured period during which an action or process begins and ends.

In learning and development, this systems-based approach is epitomized by the ADDIE conceptual framework (see Figure 1), most notably refined by Dick & Carey in The Systematic Design of Instruction (1996).

Figure 1. The ADDIE ISD Heuristic

The ADDIE approach has been one of the core tenets of instructional design for the best part of two decades, but curiously, it may not exist! In his article In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model (2003), Michael Molenda of Indiana University, the author undertook a Livingstonian attempt to discover the source for the original reference to the ADDIE model. Molenda’s research uncovered no original reference for the ADDIE model. This lack of an original reference led Molenda to write,

I am satisfied at this point to conclude that the ADDIE Model is merely a colloquial term used to describe a systematic approach to instructional development, virtually synonymous with instructional systems development (ISD). The label seems not to have a single author, but rather to have evolved informally through oral tradition. There is no original, fully elaborated model, just an umbrella term that refers to a family of models that share a common underlying structure.

Hence my suggestion above that ADDIE is more proerly labeled a conceptual framework; I would go so far as to say that it could more properly be called a set of heuristics or “rules of thumb” to develop learning content by adhering to the precepts of the systems approach (see Table 1).

Table 1. Formative evaluation is present in each stage of the ADDIE process.

2. Summative evaluation consists of tests designed for criterion-related referenced items and providing opportunities for feedback from the users.

Once they have undergone formative and summative evaluation, learners are encouraged to review and revise the courseware as necessary, until they have successfully passed the proscribed tests

The transactional nature of the systems approach assumes that the very act of communicating information to the supplicant (sorry, learner) results in the output of “learning.”

Adhering to this content development methodology, instructors consider that the channels used to “deliver” knowledge are cognitively neutral and merely replicate and modalities of the classroom – voice-over narration equating to instructor explanation, the screen being equivalent to the overhead projector or blackboard, computer-mediated interaction being the essentially the same as teacher-student interaction, and so on.

By balancing the cognitive load across the learning modalities, it is supposed that knowledge can be effectively delivered, and the student will “learn.” A corollory of this is that the learning delivery channels (visual, audial, text-based, and so forth) themselves have no affect upon the learner’s interpretation of the content, so to all intents and purposes, the “sage on the stage” transforms into the “guide by the side.”

_____________________

References:

Brown, J. S. Collins, C. & Duguid, P. (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning [Internet] Educational Researcher 18(1), pp. 32-42, Jan-Feb 1989. Available from: http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/%7Ejonassen/courses/CLE/index.html [Accessed January 12th 2007]

Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1996). The Systematic Design of Instruction (4th Ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Dillon, P. & Hallett, C. (2001, October). Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem. Cisco Systems white paper.

Exclusive Interview with Professor David Jonassen (2001) IN: elearningpost [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/
exclusive_interview_with_professor_david_jonassen [Accessed 12th January 2007]

Molenda, M. (2003). In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model. [Internet] Available from: http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/
In%20Search%20of%20Elusive%20ADDIE.pdf Accessed 12 May 2008

Rosenberg, M.J. (2001) What Lies Beyond E-Learning? learningcircuits.org e-zine [Interent] Available from: http://www.learningcircuits.org/2006/March/rosenberg.htm Accessed 14th April 2007

–

• entry-level or new hire orientation and competency building
• internal transfers to a new discipline (i.e. the worker moves from Production to QA)
• retraining on a new production system (i.e. a new type of widget-making tool or a new software system)
• employee career advancement (i.e. from individual contributor to manager)

Psychology tells us that the learning curve obeys what is called a power law (Ritter & Scholler, 2002).

As such they are often said to conform to “the power law of practice”. Cognitive psychology has shown that the power law of practice is ubiquitous, and cognitive modeling has explained both the general speedup and variability in performance.

So, as a worker learns a task, skill, or process (”progresses along the learning curve”), their competency improves and productivity increases with some variations but broadly within generally accepted parameters.

As workers advance from their neophyte status, they begin to attain what Marc J. Rosenberg (2006) calls “performer” status; the are transitioning from being Novice to Competent, along a path that will enable them to become Experienced, until they achieve Expert (or Master) status.

We can also say that once a worker reaches a certain level of competence, their learning needs are met less by generic courses and curricula, and more by specific, even personalized, learning interventions such as task/skill practise and coaching, access to knowledge and performance resources, and collaboration and problem solving (see Figure 1).

As an extension of this (and effectively demonstrated by Rosenberg), organizations failing to move beyond the classroom or traditional CBT-type courseware for their ongoing learning and development needs, are probably impeding the development of their workers, as well as negatively affecting their (the organization’s) own potential (see Figure 2).

In order to provide effective learning and performance support to workers after they become competent, organizations must strive to develop their workers’ skills as employees undertake their regular workplace activities. It is my view that this level of performance support can only be provided through access to networked knowledge assets.

And that is what I’ll be discussing tomorrow.
______________________

References:

Dillon, P. & Hallett, C. (2001, October). Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem. Cisco Systems white paper.

Ritter, F. E., & Schooler, L. J. (2002). The learning curve. In International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. 8602-8605. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
[Internet] Available from: http://www.iesbs.com/ Accessed 27 May 2008.

Rosenberg, M. J. (2006) Beyond e-Learning. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

–

• entry-level or new hire orientation and competency building
• internal transfers to a new discipline (i.e. the worker moves from Production to QA)
• retraining on a new production system (i.e. a new type of widget-making tool or a new software system)
• employee career advancement (i.e. from individual contributor to manager)

Psychology tells us that the learning curve obeys what is called a power law (Ritter & Scholler, 2002).

As such they are often said to conform to “the power law of practice”. Cognitive psychology has shown that the power law of practice is ubiquitous, and cognitive modeling has explained both the general speedup and variability in performance.

So, as a worker learns a task, skill, or process (”progresses along the learning curve”), their competency improves and productivity increases with some variations but broadly within generally accepted parameters.

As workers advance from their neophyte status, they begin to attain what Marc J. Rosenberg (2006) calls “performer” status; the are transitioning from being Novice to Competent, along a path that will enable them to become Experienced, until they achieve Expert (or Master) status.

We can also say that once a worker reaches a certain level of competence, their learning needs are met less by generic courses and curricula, and more by specific, even personalized, learning interventions such as task/skill practise and coaching, access to knowledge and performance resources, and collaboration and problem solving (see Figure 1).

As an extension of this (and effectively demonstrated by Rosenberg), organizations failing to move beyond the classroom or traditional CBT-type courseware for their ongoing learning and development needs, are probably impeding the development of their workers, as well as negatively affecting their (the organization’s) own potential (see Figure 2).

In order to provide effective learning and performance support to workers after they become competent, organizations must strive to develop their workers’ skills as employees undertake their regular workplace activities. It is my view that this level of performance support can only be provided through access to networked knowledge assets.

And that is what I’ll be discussing tomorrow.
______________________

References:

Dillon, P. & Hallett, C. (2001, October). Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem. Cisco Systems white paper.

Ritter, F. E., & Schooler, L. J. (2002). The learning curve. In International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. 8602-8605. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
[Internet] Available from: http://www.iesbs.com/ Accessed 27 May 2008.

Rosenberg, M. J. (2006) Beyond e-Learning. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

–

These earliest stages can also be considered the “off-the-job training” segment meaning they are also the most expensive to the sponsoring organization.

As learners move up the curve, they move out of the classroom and into an on-the-job learning environment. As they approach higher levels of expertise, learners require more one-on-one or individualized approaches to learning. Because each worker has a unique set of knowledge and skill gaps separating him/her from the highest levels of expertise, it will take the mentoring intelligence of a live expert to detect and redress those gaps.

Over time, and as they acquire expertise through experiential learning knowledge workers will exhaust the list of colleagues upon whom they can rely for coaching and will need to rely upon their their own skills, knowledge and expertise to improve their performance.

Dillon & Hallett note that

one of the recent maturational leaps for e-learning has been the recognition that no one form of learning technology is capable of addressing the diverse range of learning modality requirements found in the modern workplace.

The authors labelled this “leap of recognition” as “the blended solution.” I would suggest that this use of terminology reflects the time that the white paper was authored (2001): a more appropriate use of language would be to call each modality a learning delivery channel. Learning delivery channels can include different technologies – virtual classrooms, EPSS, software simulations, online collaboration, self-paced e-learning, knowledge management – they are much more than this: for example mentoring is a learning delivery channel, such activities can can be undertaken in a face-to-face or an online environment using video conferencing.

As Don Morrison says:

I find it difficult to give ‘blended learning’ the same respect I give, say, blended whiskey which is produced by the highly skilful blending of between 20 and 50 different ‘single’ malt and grain whiskies—of differing ages and from different regions and distilleries—to create a new brand with its own unique character. The greater the number of component whiskies, the greater the consistency of the resulting blend. If one of the contributing distilleries goes out of business, the blenders can achieve the same end result by adjusting the blend of the other single whiskies. If only such art, science, and commerce lay behind blended learning.

The key to leveraging this leap of recognition is to enable knowledge workers to access learning content through the most relevant learning delivery channnel for their skill level. This can be illustrated by positioning the learning delivery channels along the learning-curve model. The picture that is formed by this allocation of technologies along the curve is what Dillon & Hallett call the “E-Learning Curve” (see Figure 1).

The analogies to the conventional learning curve are apparent. Early in the learning process, workers using the conventional model of corporate training practices had to go off-the-job to attend classroom-based instruction. Knowledge workers in the e-learning ‘ecosystem’ learn from hours-long modules of Web-based training curricula. In this phase of the learning process, users of both conventional training and e-learning are removed from their job context.

As learners progress along the curve of the model, the allocation of learning delivery channels becomes more heavily influenced by e-learning modalities. With Web-based training (as with its instructor-led counterpart) the domains of usage are relatively limited. The only time it makes sense to pull workers off their jobs for training is limited precisely to those times when no alternative is available or resource-efficient. Off-the-job forms of training make good business sense only when workers are at the bottom of the learning curve and are not yet equipped to perform tasks at any acceptable level of competence.

More…

_______________________

References:

Dillon, P. & Hallett, C. (2001, October). Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem. Cisco Systems white paper.

Morrison, D., (2003) The search for the holy recipe. [Internet] Available from: http://www.morrisonco.com/downloads/blended_learning_holy_recipe.pdf Accessed 14 May 2008.

–

These earliest stages can also be considered the “off-the-job training” segment meaning they are also the most expensive to the sponsoring organization.

As learners move up the curve, they move out of the classroom and into an on-the-job learning environment. As they approach higher levels of expertise, learners require more one-on-one or individualized approaches to learning. Because each worker has a unique set of knowledge and skill gaps separating him/her from the highest levels of expertise, it will take the mentoring intelligence of a live expert to detect and redress those gaps.

Over time, and as they acquire expertise through experiential learning knowledge workers will exhaust the list of colleagues upon whom they can rely for coaching and will need to rely upon their their own skills, knowledge and expertise to improve their performance.

Dillon & Hallett note that

one of the recent maturational leaps for e-learning has been the recognition that no one form of learning technology is capable of addressing the diverse range of learning modality requirements found in the modern workplace.

The authors labelled this “leap of recognition” as “the blended solution.” I would suggest that this use of terminology reflects the time that the white paper was authored (2001): a more appropriate use of language would be to call each modality a learning delivery channel. Learning delivery channels can include different technologies – virtual classrooms, EPSS, software simulations, online collaboration, self-paced e-learning, knowledge management – they are much more than this: for example mentoring is a learning delivery channel, such activities can can be undertaken in a face-to-face or an online environment using video conferencing.

As Don Morrison says:

I find it difficult to give ‘blended learning’ the same respect I give, say, blended whiskey which is produced by the highly skilful blending of between 20 and 50 different ‘single’ malt and grain whiskies—of differing ages and from different regions and distilleries—to create a new brand with its own unique character. The greater the number of component whiskies, the greater the consistency of the resulting blend. If one of the contributing distilleries goes out of business, the blenders can achieve the same end result by adjusting the blend of the other single whiskies. If only such art, science, and commerce lay behind blended learning.

The key to leveraging this leap of recognition is to enable knowledge workers to access learning content through the most relevant learning delivery channnel for their skill level. This can be illustrated by positioning the learning delivery channels along the learning-curve model. The picture that is formed by this allocation of technologies along the curve is what Dillon & Hallett call the “E-Learning Curve” (see Figure 1).

The analogies to the conventional learning curve are apparent. Early in the learning process, workers using the conventional model of corporate training practices had to go off-the-job to attend classroom-based instruction. Knowledge workers in the e-learning ‘ecosystem’ learn from hours-long modules of Web-based training curricula. In this phase of the learning process, users of both conventional training and e-learning are removed from their job context.

As learners progress along the curve of the model, the allocation of learning delivery channels becomes more heavily influenced by e-learning modalities. With Web-based training (as with its instructor-led counterpart) the domains of usage are relatively limited. The only time it makes sense to pull workers off their jobs for training is limited precisely to those times when no alternative is available or resource-efficient. Off-the-job forms of training make good business sense only when workers are at the bottom of the learning curve and are not yet equipped to perform tasks at any acceptable level of competence.

More…

_______________________

References:

Dillon, P. & Hallett, C. (2001, October). Powering the leap to maturity: The eLearning ecosystem. Cisco Systems white paper.

Morrison, D., (2003) The search for the holy recipe. [Internet] Available from: http://www.morrisonco.com/downloads/blended_learning_holy_recipe.pdf Accessed 14 May 2008.

–