E-learning Curve Blog at Edublogs » Knowledge Management

Shiny new technologies used by dusty old professions

Michael Hanley — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:04:00 +0000

I hadn’t planned on blogging about informal learning today, but an article in Irish e-zine Silicon Republic interested me, and I thought I’d bring it to you. According to the article Number crunchers find social media a ‘tweet’ surprise, members of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants (CPA) have begun using social media such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn to co-ordinate continuous professional education. The CPA is the educational, representative and regulatory body for over 5000 members and students. The Institute’s role is to:

Regulate CPAs in accordance with the law and the Institute’s Code of Ethics in the public interest.
Ensure that CPAs are constantly up to date in all matters relating to their professional work.
Maintain the highest levels of educational standards for new entrants to the profession.
Represent the interests of members where appropriate.

The CPA’s Suzanne Shaw, outlined the reason for the emergence of non-formal and informal e-learning technologies in the Institute:

As one of [the bodies] in the Ireland that train accountants and regulate them throughout their professional life, our members are predominantly split three ways: practitioners; entrepreneurs; and employees of businesses.

All of them are at the coalface of the current economic climate and many of them use tools like LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook to give one another practical advice about sustaining businesses and planning for a long-term environment. It’s a great way to get information out to people really quickly.

It seems that the CPA members are using Facebook and Twitter to share articles and information to keep each apprised of developments in their domain. Ms. Shaw again:

The beauty of social networking is it enables two-way communication or, if you want, one-to-many communication. The CPA uses it to gauge feedback on courses and products and adjust them accordingly.

One of the benefits of LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter is that they are "ready-made." The CPA’s experience is that they can concentrate on the business use of the technology without contributors having to worry about the technology per se. Despite being (by it’s very nature) a very traditional organization, the obvious business advantages of using these platforms for information-sharing seems to have eased the transition to using social media. There are a number of core uses of social media for learning in the CPA:

The CPA recently set up a space on Facebook for new students to get and share information.
In terms of professional use, with closed LinkedIn forums are used, so information can be kept confidential between members.
CPA accountants are using Twitter as a way of relaying information or lobbying issues.
Professional members make use of LinkedIn to keep in touch with each other, as well as business associates.

Interestingly, one of the main drivers of the growth in utilization of social media tools is that accountants’ clients are "pushing them to be more involved in online communication" according to Ms. Shaw.

It seems that once members are exposed to Web 2.0 technologies, they adapt their own information-sharing practices to include Twitter and Facebook. Ms. Shaw stated that:

Many share war stories and know-how in the forums. With CPE seminars taking place across the country, people not only meet up but can also keep in touch. Because people have hectic working lives and a home life to balance, they can’t get to every course or seminar, so they …use these tools to share notes and find out where the next course is taking place. Not every one can make it to the centre of Dublin after a day’s work, so we’ve started uploading video lectures. Students …are recording podcasts of lectures and sharing on places like Facebook. We estimate about 10% of our 5,500 members and students are using social media for continuous professional education. With Facebook, for example, they are truly engaging with one another. Many use it because they are that generation, others have begun dabbling. It can only grow from here.

Brutus, in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar tells Cassius that

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune

Act IV, Scene 3.

In a similar vein, I would suggest that there are trends in the uses and the adoption of technology. The current global economic environment as well as the emergence and broad adoption of easy-to-use Read/Write Web tools like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn in society-at-large are profoundly re-shaping the ways people and organizations communicate.

As we know from Rogers’ writings on diffusion of innovation, people’s attitude toward a new technology is a key element in its diffusion. Roger’s Innovation Decision Process theory asserts that innovation diffusion is a process that occurs over time through five stages:

   1. Awareness
   2. Interest
   3. Evaluation
   4. Trial
   5. Adoption

The final phase of the diffusion process is characterized by large-scale continued use of the idea or technology, and by "satisfaction with" (Diffusion of Innovations, 2003, p.2) the idea. This does not mean that the the individual or organization that has accepted the idea will use it constantly, rather, it means that the diffused idea has been integrated into their schema or metal model as a valuable asset or resource.

Figure 1 Diffusion of Innovation curve
[Click to enlarge]

Individuals or organizations will typically go through these processes at varying speeds, depending on factors ranging from the cost, time, and effort required to implement the diffused concept, the return on the investment, how well it aligns with their previous experience with similar concepts, as well as the complexity of the idea or technology under consideration. By endorsing and supporting a range of well-tested, free-to-use solutions, that are currently very positively received in the public consciousness due to their apparent ability to elect presidents (Obama), overthrow despotic regimes (~~Obama again for Dubya~~ Iran), and circumvent traditional media channels (Michael Jackson’s death). Such momentum is hard to ignore, especially when coupled with the economic imperative of clients demanding access to CPA members’ skills via social media.

However, a corollary to the curve described in Figure 1 (above) is the Gartner Hype Lifecycle illustrated in Figure 2 (below).

Figure 2 Generic Gartner Hype Cycle
[Click to enlarge]

I would suggest that Twitter, Facebook etc are well on their way to reaching what Gartner describes as the "Peak of Inflated Expectations" associated with this type of innovation. It remains to be seen if the CPA can take this flood in the tide of technology and progress their non-formal learning initiatives, or if they will be "bound in shallows and in miseries" if they are unable to leverage the potential of this phenomenon.

___________

References:

Kennedy, J. (2009). Number crunchers find social media a ‘tweet’ surprise. Silicon Republic. [Internet] 29 June. Available from: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/13271/ [Accessed 29 June 2009]

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.. Simon & Schuster International.

–

Times Square and Knowledge Squared

Michael Hanley — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:24:00 +0000

Imagine…

Each of us had the facility to access a personalised version of the types and diversity of information and knowledge on display in Times Square, NY. Is this the ultimate immersive learning environment?

Ten years ago, who would have though you could “Broadcast Yourself” a la YouTube? There is a booth on W44th St that allows you, for a few dollars, to add your own video imagery and text message content to one of the jumbotrons on the Square; is this the beginnings of Times Square as a wiki?

[Click on image to view full-size]
–

Times Square and Knowledge Squared

Michael Hanley — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:24:00 +0000

Imagine…

[Click on image to view full-size]
–

Measuring the learning effect of non-formal learning programs

Michael Hanley — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:02:00 +0000

I have suggested in a previous blog entry that non-formal learning (NFL) is located on a continuum between so-called informal and formal learning (see Figure 1)

Figure 1 the Learning Continuum

and that learning is situated in a larger socio-cultural context – a cognitive web – that provides the knowledge-centric framework within which learners operate (see Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2 Knowledge-centric View of Knowledge (after Marc J. Rosenberg)

Similarly, NFL shares characteristics with both informal and formal learning, but is differentiated enough from both of these approaches to merit it’s own category (see Table 1)

Table 1 Definition of learning types

Learning Type	Description
Formal Learning	Learning typically provided by an education or training institution, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and leading to certification. Formal learning is intentional from the learner’s perspective [my italics].
Non-formal Learning	Learning that is not provided by an education or training institution and typically does not lead to formalised certification. It is, however, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support). Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner’s perspective [my italics].
Informal Learning	Learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family or leisure. It is not structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and typically does not lead to certification. Informal learning may be intentional but in most cases it is non-intentional (or “incidental”/ random) [my italics].

Given the non-formal nature of the learning (and by extension a paucity of the type of assessment metrics available when evaluating the efficacy of formal training programmes) I am going to explore the challenge of assessing non-formal learning in the context of Kirkpatrick’s 4-level model, particularly between Level 1 (Reaction) and Level 3 (Behaviour); as Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2006, p.22) assert “learning has taken place …when one or more of the following occurs: Attitudes (sic) are changed. Knowledge is increased. Skill is improved. One or more of these changes must take place if a change in behaviour is to occur.”

More tomorrow…

References:

Kirkpatrick, J. & Kirkpatrick, P. (2006) Evaluating Training Programs. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Rogers, A. (2004) Looking again at non-formal and informal education – towards a new paradigm [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/non_formal_paradigm.htm [Accessed 30th January 2008]

Rosenberg, M. J. (2001) e-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age London: McGraw-Hill.

E-learning & Knowledge Management

Michael Hanley — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:24:00 +0000

As you’ll know if you’ve been following the last few posts, I’ve been evaluating the term “e-learning.” After a brief investigation of the current thinking on this term, I chose Don Morrison’s definition as the most satisfactory.

Why? Well, by analysing the key terms in Morrison ’s definition, and scrutinising them in the context of the literature. I’ve looked at “andragogy” and “synchronous & asynchronous” so far; today, I’m dissecting “knowledge management. As a reminder, here’s Don’s definition:

The continuous assimilation of knowledge and skills by adults stimulated by synchronous and asynchronous learning events – and sometimes Knowledge management outputs – which are authored, delivered engaged with, supported and administered using internet technologies.

(2004, p.4)

The term Knowledge Management (KM) has been described as “the process of capturing, sharing, and leveraging a company’s collective expertise” (Botkin, 1999, p.40). I would assert that there is an anthropological aspect to the process of managing knowledge in an organisation; as we have seen earlier in this chapter, it can be argued that there is a social-cultural element to how individuals work and learn together in an organisation’s structures.

Claude Levi-Strauss, eminent structuralist and ethnographer of the Trobriand Islanders coined the phrase ‘the raw and the cooked’ in Mythologiques, Volume 1 to signify the dichotomy between elements falling along the ‘raw’ category as being of ‘natural’ origin, and those on the “cooked” side being of ‘cultural’ origin – i.e. products of human creation (Lévi-Strauss, 1966). Morrison echoes this comparison when he describes e-learning as processed (i.e. cooked) knowledge – it “takes subject matter expertise, puts it through an instructional design process and presents the result in an obvious framework. KM delivers raw, or at the very least, less processed knowledge” (p.7). Rosenberg (2006, p.106) places KM at the core of the Smart Enterprise (see Figure 1.1) Rather than seeing e-learning and KM as information in differing states of mediation existing on a knowledge and e-learning continuum, he views them as modular elements within a larger Learning and Performance Architecture. He sees the goal of any KM strategy as to enhance the organisations performance by making “undiscovered” (2006, p.106) or tacit knowledge “common” (p.106) or organisational, and making information “known and available” (p.106) to all those who need it. Like Morrison, he suggests that knowledge assets within organisations can manifest themselves in numerous shapes and sizes, from learning IM chat messages, email, content assets, learning objects, business process documents, white papers and so forth.

Figure 1.1 Learning and Performance Architecture ((after Marc J. Rosenberg))

Rosenberg also posits that KM can function as a framework for learning content – what he describes as the difference between “Course-centric and Knowledge-centric viewpoints” (p.112). Taking the example of a Java software development course (see Figure 1.2), he argues that this viewpoint is more “robust” (p.113) than the course-centric viewpoint, as the learner has the ability to navigate through a “wide array of resources: experts, information repositories, live events and virtual communities” (p.113) as well as the relevant courseware.

Figure 1.2 Knowledge-centric View of Knowledge (after Marc J. Rosenberg)

This arrangement provides a much more comprehensive and interrelated set of relationships between knowledge assets by systematically exposing more resources to where they can be found (pp.112-113).

References:

Botkin, J. W, (1999). Smart business: how knowledge communities can revolutionize your company. New York: The Free Press.

Lévi-Strauss, C (1966) The Raw and the Cooked: Mythologiques, Vol. 1. Penguin Books Ltd.

Rosenberg, M. J. (2001) e-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age London: McGraw-Hill.

Morrison, D. (2004) E-Learning Strategies: how to get implementation and delivery right first time, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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