1. Blended learning
   2. Talent management
   3. Web / Learning 2.0
   4. Knowledge centers
   5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

Today, I’m going to look at the remaining change factors.

Knowledge Centers
A knowledge center provide a central, just-in-time location for information. It is a single-focused interface with information about a specific topic, like IT applications, sales, or project management. A knowledge center is often a portal or part of the company intranet (like Moodle or SharePoint), or it is the knowledge management component of an LMS like BlackBoard. Knowledge Centers are where information workers go for FAQs, the latest tips, tricks and how-to’s, links to external resources, relevant information, and other resources about a specific topic that may not be directly related to a formal course (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Employees Find Help In A Knowledge Center

Sites must be useful, up-to-date, and responsive to employee needs. An organization must decide on the most important knowledge center topics, create a user-friendly site, and populate it with information. A designated person must be responsible for maintaining the knowledge center portal and identifying new information and material for the site. Survey employees about their needs and provide a feedback box on the site.

Immersive Learning Simulations: Serious Games
Simulations are models of the real world. Add pedagogically sound content, learner interaction and involvement, and a gaming element — all focused on achieving a learning goal — and the result is an immersive learning simulation (ILS).

The challenge is getting the right mix of learning and gaming. Today’s most immersive learning simulations are custom creations from a specialized vendors, and they are more obviously expensive than traditional e-learning content development. Achieving the right balance between the gaming and learning components takes expertise from three professionals: a subject matter expert, an instructional designer, and a game developer, all working closely together.

As more immersive 3D social networking environments like Second Life (2L) become available, serious gaming will become a more common modality for non- and informal learning. There are some problems associated with the environment, however. According to Bill Brandon (2007, p.7)

for typical non-students (employees) sitting through a slide-presentation-and-lecture in Second Life is no more effective (and likely less so) than sitting through the same dog and pony show in a physical space.

With this in mind 2L does have potential; e-learning practitioners can use it to create effective constructivist learning environments. For example, if you have a requirement similar to this for sales training, negotiation skills, diversity training, or any other communication- based skill, Second Life might be all you need. Interactive learning activities (like simulations, immersive learning, and gaming) put employees in virtual yet authentic situations, where they can learn the skills and materials while also making decisions and getting immediate feedback on their choices.

The transformation of workplace learning means that organizations must develop informal learning as a resource for employees. As the younger workforce becomes a more significant part of organizations and moves into management positions, these people will demand different kinds of learning opportunities and tools to get to learning resources quickly.

Figure 2 VLE on 2L

They expect to control much of their own learning, so learning professionals must offer an range of useful up-to-date resources inside and outside the organization for information, knowledge, and training. If employees don’t see these learning resources as part of their organization’s talent management and development programs, the chances are that they will move to more progressive companies that will acknowledge their learning and career development needs.

__________________

References:

Brandon, B. (2007) ‘Give Your e-Learning Some (Second) Life: Simulation Made Easy.’ eLearning Guild. [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningguild.com/articles/abstracts/index.cfm?action=viewonly2&id=246 (subscription required). Accessed 19 March 2009

Schooley, C. (2008) Informal Methods Challenge Corporate Learning [Internet] Available from: http://www.forrester.com Accessed 12 March 2009

–

1. Blended learning
2. Talent management
3. Web / Learning 2.0
4. Knowledge centers
5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

I will discuss the first three of these today.

Multiple-Channel learning or ‘blended’ learning is not a new learning approach, but it is becoming more common within training programs. Multiple-channel learning uses a range of learning modalities to train learners, as appropriate to the content and the context (see Figure 1). For example, a learning module might include some classroom learning, followed by some self-paced e-learning, with periodic online virtual classroom sessions for discussions. When learners reach a level of competence, they could be assigned mentors who work with them during their on-the-job training period.

Figure 1. Multiple “Blended” Learning Channels

However, no formula exists for a successful multiple-channel learning course. The question that a learning and development professional must ask is,

What instructional blend is going to work best, given the kind of students, the nature of the content, and the skills these people need?

Sometimes blended learning includes just two modalities, like self-paced online learning along with virtual classroom for discussion and interaction. Sometimes a face-to-face component is central, with synchronous and asynchronous instruction, mentoring, or community of practice used for review, collaboration, and support.

Increasingly, employers struggle to attract and retain the best talent. Enter Human Capital Management. Organizations need the ability to seamlessly assess worker competencies and to provide employees with learning experiences that will close knowledge gaps and enhance job performance. Learning doesn’t stand by itself any longer — it’s integral to the other components of human capital management (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The Four Pillars Of Strategic Human Capital Management

But unified learning and talent management systems don’t necessarily integrate. Many organizations have embedded legacy point solutions for learning, performance, and compensation. These solutions do not integrate well, and this inhibits seamless movement of information. For example, once a manager conducting a performance review identifies one or more employee competency gaps, the manager should then have the ability (through integrated applications) to assign learning directly to an employee learning plan that will help close the gap.

Learning 2.0 is a trend in which employees take more control of their learning and knowledge gathering. They decide what they need, where to go, and how to find information from a variety of resources both inside and outside of their corporate intranet (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Employees Drive Their Own Learning

To facilitate this, workers must have robust tools like expertise location, search, and instant messaging (IM) available to them, and they must know how to make the best use of these tools. A new mind set is required for Learning 2.0 to succeed. Many business leaders (and indeed HR departments) think of learning as classroom courses, even though most are beginning to grudgingly accepted e-learning as appropriate for certain kinds of training. Many people – especially those from a traditionalist or pre-digital era – are still skeptical about the place of informal tools in the work environment. The thinking goes:

Dollars allocated to learning are for formal courses, even though learning after formal college education takes place informally and non-formally.

Worse again, in certain “toxic” workplace environments individual or small group engage in the unsavory activity of empire building – where they attempt to gain control over key projects and initiatives in order to maximize their job security and promotability.

Empire builders hoard credit and prestige for projects, and knowledge-sharing is anathema to them. This approach prevents other people in the organization from contributing in a meaningful manner, and alternative or competing projects to address the project’s goals are destroyed regardless of their merit. The outcome of empire building is, inevitably, that the organization suffers as a whole, projects fail, and organizational goals are achieved only partially, inadequately, or not at all. This sort of behavior is very common.

The tender shoots of non-formal learning will inevitably be destroyed by the weeds of empire building. For non- and informal learning initiatives to be implemented successfully, environment of sharing, where employees are expected to share rather than hoard information must be formed.

More…

_________________

References:

Schooley, C. (2008) Informal Methods Challenge Corporate Learning [Internet] Available from: http://www.forrester.com Accessed 12 March 2009

1. Blended learning
2. Talent management
3. Web / Learning 2.0
4. Knowledge centers
5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

I will discuss the first three of these today.

Multiple-Channel learning or ‘blended’ learning is not a new learning approach, but it is becoming more common within training programs. Multiple-channel learning uses a range of learning modalities to train learners, as appropriate to the content and the context (see Figure 1). For example, a learning module might include some classroom learning, followed by some self-paced e-learning, with periodic online virtual classroom sessions for discussions. When learners reach a level of competence, they could be assigned mentors who work with them during their on-the-job training period.

  Figure 1. Multiple “Blended” Learning Channels

However, no formula exists for a successful multiple-channel learning course. The question that a learning and development professional must ask is,

What instructional blend is going to work best, given the kind of students, the nature of the content, and the skills these people need?

Sometimes blended learning includes just two modalities, like self-paced online learning along with virtual classroom for discussion and interaction. Sometimes a face-to-face component is central, with synchronous and asynchronous instruction, mentoring, or community of practice used for review, collaboration, and support.

Increasingly, employers struggle to attract and retain the best talent. Enter Human Capital Management. Organizations need the ability to seamlessly assess worker competencies and to provide employees with learning experiences that will close knowledge gaps and enhance job performance. Learning doesn’t stand by itself any longer — it’s integral to the other components of human capital management (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The Four Pillars Of Strategic Human Capital Management

But unified learning and talent management systems don’t necessarily integrate. Many organizations have embedded legacy point solutions for learning, performance, and compensation. These solutions do not integrate well, and this inhibits seamless movement of information. For example, once a manager conducting a performance review identifies one or more employee competency gaps, the manager should then have the ability (through integrated applications) to assign learning directly to an employee learning plan that will help close the gap.

Learning 2.0 is a trend in which employees take more control of their learning and knowledge gathering. They decide what they need, where to go, and how to find information from a variety of resources both inside and outside of their corporate intranet (see Figure 3).

  Figure 3. Employees Drive Their Own Learning

To facilitate this, workers must have robust tools like expertise location, search, and instant messaging (IM) available to them, and they must know how to make the best use of these tools.  A new mind set is required for Learning 2.0 to succeed. Many business leaders (and indeed HR departments) think of learning as classroom courses, even though most are beginning to grudgingly accepted e-learning as appropriate for certain kinds of training. Many people – especially those from a traditionalist or pre-digital era – are still skeptical about the place of informal tools in the work environment. The thinking goes:

Dollars allocated to learning are for formal courses, even though learning after formal college education takes place informally and non-formally.

Worse again, in certain “toxic” workplace environments individual or small group engage in the unsavory activity of empire building – where they attempt to gain control over key projects and initiatives in order to maximize their job security and promotability.

Empire builders hoard credit and prestige for projects, and knowledge-sharing is anathema to them. This approach prevents other people in the organization from contributing in a meaningful manner, and alternative or competing projects to address the project’s goals are destroyed regardless of their merit. The outcome of empire building is, inevitably, that the organization suffers as a whole, projects fail, and organizational goals are achieved only partially, inadequately, or not at all. This sort of behavior is very common.

The tender shoots of non-formal learning will inevitably be destroyed by the weeds of empire building. For non- and informal learning initiatives to be implemented successfully, environment of sharing, where employees are expected to share rather than hoard information must be formed.

More…

_________________

References:

Schooley, C. (2008) Informal Methods Challenge Corporate Learning [Internet] Available from: http://www.forrester.com Accessed 12 March 2009

…have acquired visibility and saliency [because they] sit at the juncture of new thinking concerning the nature of learning about new forms of knowledge, about the transformation of the nature of work and about the modern enterprise in a globalized economy

(cited in Fuller & Unwin, 2002, p. 95).

As a concept and set of practices, ‘workplace learning’ has entered a period of political, economic and social transformation. Advances in technology, the demise of manufacturing industries and the growth of service sector industries, have led to changes in the meaning of the ‘workplace’ (for example, home-working (Felstead et al, 2000), working on-the-move (Felstead et al, 2005), ‘flexible’ working (Felstead et al, 1999); concomitantly, the shift towards new, post-industrial style workplace structures and practices,

have led to a new set of concept and practices surrounding ‘workplace learning.’ These include:

• different workplace contexts
• different workplace knowledge-sets
• different workers

to those of the past.

Workplace learning used to occur in the classroom or via online ‘e-training courses.’ While this style of learning is still important for regulatory or compliance training, a strong need is emerging for informal learning that is more closely integrated with employee work. Examples include:

• Some categories of business and technical training
• Procedural learning
• Deeper learning that requires concept development and interaction

Here are some reasons why this shift is happening:

Information / cognitive overload is affecting all workers. We can’t store all the facts, details, and data we need to do our jobs today, and more information is created every year.1 Thus, an important new skill is the ability to search effectively to find the information you need when you need it. It might even be information presented in a course that you took online a year ago.

Immediacy of information is critical in today’s workforce. With today’s fast business pace and emphasis on speed to market, employees may need to access a particular 5-minute piece of learning that will get them to the next step fast.2 This means that learning must come in smaller chunks that are only a click away. It also means that information and learning tend to blur in the work environment.

The Internet generation brings a different work style. The computer-savvy, 20-something ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2000) are very good at using technology to find what they want. They are impatient and want to access information resources quickly, and they assimilate and connect this information to their work. This workers prefers to drive personal learning, rather than simply receive information from an instructor.

Learning and development professionals need to begin working with lines of business outside of the traditional HR / Training orbit to ensure that the organizations provide a variety of formal and informal learning opportunities for employees. In some cases, the training department within HR organizes both formal and informal learning. In other contexts, HR handles formal learning, and individual lines of business handle the informal learning related to their specific activities (with consultation from learning professionals).

As well as these organizational changes, learning professionals must understand five key emerging trends:

1. Blended learning
2. Talent management
3. Web / Learning 2.0
4. Knowledge centers
5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

More…

_____________________

References:

Felstead, A. and Jewson, N. (2000) In Work, At Home: Towards an Understanding of Homeworking, London: Routledge.

Felstead, A., Jewson, N. and Walters, S. (2005) Changing Places of Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2003) Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation, Journal of Education and Work, 16:4, pp. 407-426.

Lee, T. Fuller, A., Ashton, D., Butler, P., Felstead, A., Unwin, L., & Walters, S. (2004) Learning as Work: Teaching and Learning Processes in the Contemporary Work Organisation,
Workplace Learning: Main Themes & Perspectives Learning as Work Research Paper, No. 2.

Prensky, M. (200) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. [Internet] Available from:http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Accessed 21 October 2007

Stern, A. and Sommerlad, E. (1999) Workplace Learning, Culture and Performance. Institute of personnel and Development, London.

–

have acquired visibility and saliency [because they] sit at the juncture of new thinking concerning the nature of learning about new forms of knowledge, about the transformation of the nature of work and about the modern enterprise in a globalized economy

(cited in Fuller & Unwin, 2002, p. 95).

As a concept and set of practices, ‘workplace learning’ has entered a period of political, economic and social transformation. Advances in technology, the demise of manufacturing industries and the growth of service sector industries, have led to changes in the meaning of the ‘workplace’ (for example, home-working (Felstead et al, 2000), working on-the-move (Felstead et al, 2005), ‘flexible’ working (Felstead et al, 1999); concomitantly, the shift  towards new, post-industrial style workplace structures and practices,

have led to a new set of concept and practices surrounding  ‘workplace learning.’ These include:

• different workplace contexts
• different workplace knowledge-sets
• different workers

to those of the past.

Workplace learning used to occur in the classroom or via online ‘e-training courses.’ While this style of learning is still important for regulatory or compliance training, a strong need is emerging for informal learning that is more closely integrated with employee work. Examples include:

• Some categories of business and technical training
• Procedural learning
• Deeper learning that requires concept development and interaction

Here are some reasons why this shift is happening:

Information / cognitive overload is affecting all workers. We can’t store all the facts, details, and data we need to do our jobs today, and more information is created every year.1 Thus, an important new skill is the ability to search effectively to find the information you need when you need it. It might even be information presented in a course that you took online a year ago.

Immediacy of information is critical in today’s workforce. With today’s fast business pace and emphasis on speed to market, employees may need to access a particular 5-minute piece of learning that will get them to the next step fast.2 This means that learning must come in smaller chunks that are only a click away. It also means that information and learning tend to blur in the work environment. 

The Internet generation brings a different work style. The computer-savvy, 20-something ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2000) are very good at using technology to find what they want.  They are impatient and want to access information resources quickly, and they assimilate and connect this information to their work. This workers prefers to drive personal learning, rather than simply receive information from an instructor.

Learning and development professionals need to begin working with lines of business outside of the traditional HR / Training orbit to ensure that the organizations provide a variety of formal and informal learning opportunities for employees. In some cases, the training department within HR organizes both formal and informal learning. In other contexts, HR handles formal learning, and individual lines of business handle the informal learning related to their specific activities (with consultation from learning professionals).

As well as these organizational changes, learning professionals must understand five key emerging trends:

1. Blended learning
2. Talent management
3. Web / Learning 2.0
4. Knowledge centers
5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

More…

_____________________

References:

Felstead, A. and Jewson, N. (2000) In Work, At Home: Towards an Understanding of Homeworking, London: Routledge.

Felstead, A., Jewson, N. and Walters, S. (2005) Changing Places of Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2003) Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation, Journal of Education and Work, 16:4, pp. 407-426.

Lee, T. Fuller, A., Ashton, D., Butler, P., Felstead, A., Unwin, L., & Walters, S. (2004) Learning as Work: Teaching and Learning Processes in the Contemporary Work Organisation,
Workplace Learning: Main Themes & Perspectives Learning as Work Research Paper, No. 2.

Prensky, M. (200) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. [Internet] Available from:http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Accessed 21 October 2007

Stern, A. and Sommerlad, E. (1999) Workplace Learning, Culture and Performance. Institute of personnel and Development, London.

–

the acquisition of knowledge independently of conscious attempts to learn and the absence of explicit knowledge about what was learned’

(Reber, 1993, quoted by Eraut 2000, p.12)

This is, he argues, because most workplace learning takes place outside formal learning contexts, and informal learning carries with it connotations of

so many other features of a situation, such as dress, discourse, behavior, diminution of social differences – that its colloquial application as a descriptor of learning contexts may have little to do with learning per se.

(p.12)

Not only does the term carry unwanted and confusing implications, but it is too vague to be of any real utility. For Eraut, an analysis of learning must focus on activities and the outcomes that that contribute to significant changes in capability or understanding. In a sense, Eraut does not define non-formal learning; rather, he defines the characteristics of formal learning (p.12) as:

1. A prescribed learning framework
2. An organized learning event or package
3. The presence of a designated teacher or trainer
4. The award of a qualification or credit
5. The external specification of outcomes.

The implication of this categorization is that any learning that does not exhibit all of these characteristics should be classed as non-formal. Some reviewers (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002) make the point that Eraut does not make clear what the status is of learning in situations that meet some, but not all, of his ‘formal’ criteria. My interpretation of his characterization is that the very nature of a formal activity –

following or according with established form, custom, or rule

(Merriam-Webster Online, 2007)

validates Eraut’s description.

More…

____________

References:
Colley, Hodkinson, Malcolm (2002) non-formal learning: mapping the conceptual terrain. a consultation report [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm [Accessed 28th January 2009]
Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

it is difficult to make a clear distinction between formal and informal learning as there is often a crossover between the two

(McGivney, 1999, p.1).

Another complexity in the discussion is where is non-formal learning located in relation to the diametric opposites? For much of the forty years since the term ‘non-formal learning’ was first coined (Coombs, 1968, p.1.) there has been a great deal of debate in the literature as to the nature of formal, informal and non-formal learning; the components of each of the paradigms, their boundaries and their overlaps. The locus of this debate is centered on arguments for “the inherent superiority of one or the other” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002, p.2).

I support Alan Rogers’ (2004) view that a “new paradigm” for learning exists, in which “most programs [are] partly formal and partly informal” going from formal to informal and from informal to formal in both directions along a continuum (see Figure 1) . “Both forms of education are important elements in the total learning experience” (Looking again at non-formal and informal education – towards a new paradigm, 2004).

Figure 1 the Learning Continuum

Similarly, Hodkinson & Hodkinson argue that focusing on the extent to which learning is planned and intentional may be a way of by-passing the distinction between formal, non-formal and informal altogether.” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002).

More to follow…

__________

References:
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm J. (2002) Non-formal learning: mapping the conceptual terrain. a consultation report [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm [Accessed 28th January 2009]
Coombs, P. (1968) The World Educational Crisis, New York, Oxford University Press.

Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

Grebow, D. (2002) At the Water Cooler of Learning [Internet] Available from: http://agelesslearner.com/articles/watercooler_dgrebow_tc600.html [Accessed 30th February 2009]

McGivney, V. (1999) Informal learning in the community: a trigger for change and development NIACE. Leicester.

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]

–

it is difficult to make a clear distinction between formal and informal learning as there is often a crossover between the two

(McGivney, 1999, p.1).

Another complexity in the discussion is where is non-formal learning located in relation to the diametric opposites? For much of the forty years since the term ‘non-formal learning’ was first coined (Coombs, 1968, p.1.) there has been a great deal of debate in the literature as to the nature of formal, informal and non-formal learning; the components of each of the paradigms, their boundaries and their overlaps. The locus of this debate is centered on arguments for “the inherent superiority of one or the other” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002, p.2).

I support Alan Rogers’ (2004) view that a “new paradigm” for learning exists, in which “most programs [are] partly formal and partly informal” going from formal to informal and from informal to formal in both directions along a continuum (see Figure 1) . “Both forms of education are important elements in the total learning experience” (Looking again at non-formal and informal education – towards a new paradigm, 2004).

Figure 1 the Learning Continuum

Similarly, Hodkinson & Hodkinson argue that focusing on the extent to which learning is planned and intentional may be a way of by-passing the distinction between formal, non-formal and informal altogether.” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002).

More to follow…

__________

References:
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm J. (2002) Non-formal learning: mapping the conceptual terrain. a consultation report [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm [Accessed 28th January 2009]
Coombs, P. (1968) The World Educational Crisis, New York, Oxford University Press.

Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

Grebow, D. (2002) At the Water Cooler of Learning [Internet] Available from: http://agelesslearner.com/articles/watercooler_dgrebow_tc600.html [Accessed 30th February 2009]

McGivney, V. (1999) Informal learning in the community: a trigger for change and development NIACE. Leicester.

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]

–

In the corporate context, learning is about mastering technical and social skills, and product knowledge. The focus is on attaining the skills. knowledge, and expertise required to meet the promise made to the customer.

In an interview in 2005, the estimable Jay Cross articulated a concept that many (including myself) felt was an emerging trend in corporate learning and development:

Well, I had to redefine all learning …because the world is changing so fast. The concepts we had when knowledge was fixed in place, like something you could put in a library, don’t work anymore. So I look at all learning as adaptation to the communities that matter to you, to your ecosystems, if you will. Informal Learning is simply that, which is not directed by an organization or somebody in a control position.

(Interview with Jay Cross: Informal Learning)

The year 2005 heralded the recovery from the Dot-Com Crash in 2001, a year Kevin Kruse has described as one that

…brought the harsh, steep slope of unfulfilled promises. Several high-profile [e-learning] providers shut their doors while many more announced large-scale layoffs in the face of missed revenue targets and crashing stock prices. E-learning advocates retreated to the more defensible ground of “blended learning. This year [went] down as the Trough of Despair.

As a result of this turn-of-the-century disillusionment, a key document on lifelong learning published by the European Commission in the same year went unnoticed by many training professionals. In their 2001 document Communication on Lifelong Learning, the authors Holford, Patulny & Sturgis defined the terms formal, non-formal and informal learning (p.9):

Table 1 Definition of learning types

More next time…

___________

References:

Cross, J. (2004) An informal history of eLearning. On the Horizon [Internet] 12(3). pp.103-110. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/2740120301.pdf (Subscription required) Accessed 20th February, 2007

Holford, J. Patulny, R. & Sturgis, P. (2005) Indicators of Non-formal & Informal Educational Contributions to Active Citizenship. A Paper Prepared for the European Commission by the University of Surrey. [Internet]. Available from: http://farmweb.jrc.cec.eu.int/CRELL/active_citizenship.htm Accessed 25th October, 2006

Kruse, K. (2002) The State of e-Learning: Looking at History with the Technology Hype Cycle. [Internet] Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/hype1_1.htm [Accessed 12th February 2008]

–

In the corporate context, learning is about mastering technical and social skills, and product knowledge. The focus is on attaining the skills. knowledge, and expertise required to meet the promise made to the customer.

In an interview in 2005, the estimable Jay Cross articulated a concept that many (including myself) felt was an emerging trend in corporate learning and development:

Well, I had to redefine all learning …because the world is changing so fast. The concepts we had when knowledge was fixed in place, like something you could put in a library, don’t work anymore. So I look at all learning as adaptation to the communities that matter to you, to your ecosystems, if you will. Informal Learning is simply that, which is not directed by an organization or somebody in a control position.

(Interview with Jay Cross: Informal Learning)

The year 2005 heralded the recovery from the Dot-Com Crash in 2001, a year Kevin Kruse has described as one that

…brought the harsh, steep slope of unfulfilled promises. Several high-profile [e-learning] providers shut their doors while many more announced large-scale layoffs in the face of missed revenue targets and crashing stock prices. E-learning advocates retreated to the more defensible ground of “blended learning. This year [went] down as the Trough of Despair.

As a result of this turn-of-the-century disillusionment, a key document on lifelong learning published by the European Commission in the same year went unnoticed by many training professionals. In their 2001 document Communication on Lifelong Learning, the authors Holford, Patulny & Sturgis defined the terms formal, non-formal and informal learning (p.9):

Table 1 Definition of learning types

More next time…

___________

References:

Cross, J. (2004) An informal history of eLearning. On the Horizon [Internet] 12(3). pp.103-110. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/2740120301.pdf (Subscription required) Accessed 20th February, 2007

Holford, J. Patulny, R. & Sturgis, P. (2005) Indicators of Non-formal & Informal Educational Contributions to Active Citizenship. A Paper Prepared for the European Commission by the University of Surrey. [Internet]. Available from: http://farmweb.jrc.cec.eu.int/CRELL/active_citizenship.htm Accessed 25th October, 2006

Kruse, K. (2002) The State of e-Learning: Looking at History with the Technology Hype Cycle. [Internet] Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/hype1_1.htm [Accessed 12th February 2008]

–