Paul Coyne :: Blog :: elearning

Back in the office now after this year’s visit to Berlin for the Online Educa conference and exhibition. Now it its 14^th year this conference has become the largest and most comprehensive global e-learning conference for the corporate, education and public service sectors.

 

I like this event a lot. The quality and diversity of the presentations, subjects and speakers is very high and it’s a great place to catch up with people I don’t otherwise get the chance to catch up with.

 

This year I was invited to speak on the subject of ‘Web 2.0 and Work Based Learning’. Basically this was a piece on the mapping of appropriate web 2.0 designs/socialised learning designs on top of existing work based learning programmes. Ensuring that your audience is ready for the introduction of such a technology was one caveat, along with the need to allow users/learners to ‘on-board’ their use of Web 2.0 in the workplace as their mastery and confidence increases.

 

It’s a more sober piece than one I may have done even a year ago I think. Pragmatism and the realisation that adoption of Web 2.0 in the work place won’t happen just ‘cos I say it’s great, have caused me to temper some of the evangelism of recent years. I’m not sure that this approach is in the long term useful to anyone but it feels time to slow down a little I think and reflect on the last year or so worth of development.

 

I enjoyed delivering my presentation, and the chair, Phillipe, did a great job in managing the session. However, being in the main hall has its drawbacks. It’s a very large room and I think Q&A can be a little intimidating for the audience. This is a shame because it’s the best and most valuable part of any session I think. I’d like to see non-plenary sessions kept in smaller, more intimate conference rooms that do allow for Q&A, better for everyone.

 

Reflecting on the past few days and on some of the sessions I was able to attend a few strands has emerged:

• Web 2.0 is no longer the novelty it has been for the past 2 or 3 years – more cases and reflections on use of Web 2.0 but with more maturity and some criticism too.
• Second Life. There was a substantial SL presence and it appeared in the sessions too. This just isn’t going away and the Bavarian Library had a very good demonstration of their SL presence which I found intriguing. For me the jury is still out on SL, but perhaps it’s time to revisit SL?
• OER. Open Educational Resources. For me this seems to have come out of the blue in the last 12 months. A lot of time was given over to OER and I attended quite a few OER sessions. Sorry, but this is all smoke and mirrors and the premise deeply flawed. I congratulate Arturo Dyro of Young Digital Planet for his defense of publishing in an OER world the Day 2 plenary on ‘OER – Unstoppable or Unsustainable?’.
• Engaging with Gen Y, Millenials and Next Generation Learners. Lots of airtime on why the upcoming generation is different to the last and why current structures are ill-suited to meeting their particular needs. Ton Ziljstra talked about this too at the end of Day 1. Quite interesting.

 

On Day 2 I listened to the ELIG panel and session on Publishing Meets eLearning. I was invited to take part in this panel but unfortunately OEB policy dictated that I could not since I had presented on Day 1. The talks were given by Stephen Bradley (Elsevier), Diana Childress (Blackboard) and Eric Baber (Cambridge University Press). These were honest and realistic appraisals of the role of the publisher in an eLearning context and posed more questions than answers. There was (is) much confusion over the value add and the position in the value chain of the publisher in delivering, developing and commissioning elearning (assuming one has defined elearning in any meaningful way). Some slightly opposing views from the floor and the panel regarding statements like ‘Content is no longer King’ added to the general sense of wooliness, but I think that is to be expected in what is a traditional, and very successful business. Experimentation with content and business models, formats and modalities is to be encouraged but I don’t believe anyone knows what success will look like in a Publisher/eLearning world.

 

Overall this was a successful Online Educa 2008. I’m looking forward to following up on some very interesting propositions and developing Emerald thinking in new and innovative ways as a result.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Getting ready to return to the UK after what has been a very enjoyable couple of days in Sestri Levante, a gorgeous italian village on the Ligurian cost south of Genoa.

Giunti Labs has been our host and organiser this year for the European Learning Industry Group AGM (22^nd) and the Digital Education Content Marketplaces (DECOM 2008) conference and workshop.

I don't really know where to begin; I think these have been two of the most singularly useful conferences I've attended for a long time. The quality of the audience and the speakers was extremely high so the subsequent opportunities to network and to have extremely interesting conversations with decision makers and persons of influences was tremendous. The content was of an equally high standard and the design of both days allowed for quite a bit of interactvity, group work and conversation on a chosen stream.

Day 1 was the AGM of ELIG. ELIG is positioning itself as the leading voice of the European Learning Industry which really is as broad as the title suggests – representation from Academic institutions, content providers, learning consultancy firms, system vendors, publishers, EU agencies ensured a diverse a range of views as it was possible to get in one room and I think ultimately that is the real value of the group, and the event itself. A couple of things stand out I think – ELIG as a group includes organisations that pursue very different agendas and hold quite conflicting ideas, particularly those around Open Content/Access. This issue alone caused much debate and from my perspective it was very valuable indeed to have a forum where contentious notions of Openness could be discussed frankly and in safety – and I think it worked to a degree. The question of openness is a very nuanced and complex one and this is sometimes not expressed when organisations espouse the moral force for social good that they believe Open Content almost certainly is. This in my view is too simplistic and fails t take into account a whole range of issues including quality, authority, credibility, relevance, preservation, sustainability (in particular), accountability and perceived value – that's just of the top of my head. The fact that there were a number of publishers present helped advance the debate around Openness and helped some organisations to adopt a less naive and a richer view of the question of Openness. This is my hope anyway. ELIG have an important task here to help manage the conflict and tensions of such a diverse group.

The ELIG event was much more than that however, but more later.

DECOM2008, hosted in Giunti Labs stunning coastal HQ, was an equally fascinating and enormously interesting day. The opening presentations from Fabrizio cardinalli, David Worlock and Judy Brown were real highlights for me, not because they were so very new – my own views were very much echoed by the presenters – but because my Chief Exec was in the room and it's nice to have him hear it from someone else – another Chief Exec helps!

This was another very diverse day and allowed for group breakouts in the afternoon to discuss any one of ten subjects on offer. I was pleased to report the findings of our table to the audience and to talk at some length about the future value of Community, social tools and the unbundling of content on the web. The question of Openness was raised again and the assumption always is that as a publisher I'm dead against it – however it's easy to point out some of the different approaches to Openness – Open software, no problem (InTouch is built on Open Source software since we believe building communities is a better use of our time not creating new software), Open Content – what content? User created content I welcome very much. I pursue a 3 C's strategy with InTouch (community, content and context) and UCC is an important part of that approach. UCC adds real value to Editorially created content (ECC) and in fact isn't new. We tie ourselves up in knots with this and it's not that tricky really – all content has spawned UCC however in the past it may have taken the form of conversation, annotation, notes and reviews (Quill pen, ink and parchment). So it goes on the web and we now call that UGC or UCC. I'm relaxed about that content – it's a natural expression of interaction with content and people and can help guide people to make informed decisions about content and communities in terms of relevance, trust, quality, ownership, perspective and agenda.

I'm very grateful to the organisers, Richard Straub at ELIG and Fabrizio Cardinalli (Giunti CEO) for arranging such a stimulating couple of days. It's not often such a diversity of insight, experience and perspective is assembled in the same space and to have the opportunity to challenge and to be challenged on some very important issues is very rare and correspondingly valuable. Thanks guys.

If you ever really needed an excuse to go to World of Learning Conference and Exhibition here it is.

Your favourite Community of Practice/Personal Learning Environment platform is up for an award,and it's a good 'un too. Think positive thoughts on November 19th and spread the word!

World of Learning Conference

Educational & Learning Export Product of the Year         

 

• EPICT European Pedagogical ICT Licence – EPICT European Pedagogical ICT Licence
• Emerald Group Publishing – Emerald In Touch
• The PR Academy – Online Diploma in Public Relations

 

Back home briefly after a very interesting day in Belfast.

The British Computer Society (BCS) today created a new Specialist Group, the eLearning SG. Led by Dr. James Uhomiobi this promises to be the kind of SG I tried (unsuccesfully) to launch a few years ago - I'm so pleased for James that he's been able to pull this together, I think it's a very important development so I was delighted to accept James' invitation to attend the official launch.

I must say that I was also pleased to meet Brig. Alan Pollard a name I kinda knew from DII(F) days a few years ago; among many others today - looking forward to catching up with the elearning blogs that I was introduced to inlcuding Michelle Gallen's at Liquidelearning.com. Should be fun!

And to bed... kind of. Looking forward to getting picked up at 3am for flights to Genoa for the AGM of the European Learning Industry Group (ELIG). Again, should be a very interesting and enjoyable few days but I remember now why I got out of the consultancy game! Miss my own bed and home comforts too much - sob!

Into the second day of Internet Librarian 2008, here in Hammersmith London.

To be honest I'm not sure what to make of this event. I suspect this has more to do with my lack of deep familiarity of library and librarian processces, roles and challenges. Which is why I'm here.

With the exception of a (packed) session yesterday afternoon – more on this to come – the sessions appear to be an exchange of productivity tips and a kind of show'n tell of links and favourite sites that the speaker hopes the audience will find useful too. A lot of the library created software is aimed at the library user and it's imaginative stuff and probably very innovative. However, I'm left with nagging feeling that these tips, tricks and innovations are designed to impress other librarians. It doesn't look very intuitive to me and I humbly suggest that if looks complicated to me then it will appear horrible to most library users. It's a shame I think. The audience are clearly passionate and intelligent and experienced but their budgets don't strike me as large and the work is so isolated and unco-ordinated that even the best developments are doomed to obscurity. Which brings me back to the ealrier point.

In the panel session yesterday (Future Library) there was much lamentation and wailing and gnashing of teeth over the lot of the librarian. They've had (and continue to receive) a pretty raw deal it turns out and they're probably right in many respects – I don't know, I've only been in this sector for a few years. The point was repeatedly made that librarians need to stick together and tell those beastly publishers EXACTLY what they want!! Geez, I thought they were going dash out find a publisher and lynch him to satisfy their sense of injustice.

Thing is, the guy was right – librarians should tell publisher's what they want. Generally speaking it's the only way stuff improves, including publisher web databases, platforms and designs. Yay, Go librarians! You tell them in no uncertain terms what you want – trust me, it would make my job much easier.

In topic terms Web 2.0 and eLearning commands a lot of track time here. Like every other sector Librarians are still figuring this out actually if anything library usage of social media tools and web 2.0 is behind that of other sectors I've become familiar with. Not sure why this is yet. I wonder if it's cultural? I mean why else would they appear to be so enthralled by netvibes and ning. Perhaps Social Media just doesn't sit well with what it is to be a librarian, which seems to about classfication, preservation, control and authority – guess that will get me lynched too.

One of the reasons I've always believed that Social Media/Web 2.0 and elearning were particularly well matched was the fact that there exists sound pedagogical models that provide a theoretical and rounded underpinning of the use of the technology – Behaviourist is replaced by Constructivist, or Connectionism models of learning; some of which I think would have been difficult in a pre-web 2.0 world.

I can't honestly say the same for librarianship. Admittedly this statement is uttered by someone with a pretty scant (read as v. Poor) knowledge of librarianship but I'm not sure that in practical or theoretical terms there is a suitable model that neatly dovetails with the social and personal nature of the tools. If the models and frameworks are missing then it's just tinkering with new tech for the sake of it isn't it?

 

I've been thinking a lot about how to foster more successful Communities of Practice (CoPs) and Interest. A couple of key questions emerge:

How can I make my community of practice truly effective?
How can I prevent my network becoming a "notwork"?

Communities of practice (networks) lie at the heart of successful knowledge management in most organisations. They are the lifeblood of informal exchanges of knowledge. Typically, communities go through a series of stages as they develop. This article, drawn from a best-selling knowledge management fieldbook by its author, identifies the key steps involved in creating and sustaining a successful community of practice, providing practical hints and tips for every part of the lifecycle.

The guidelines below are drawn from the book "Learning to Fly - Practical knowledge management from leading and learning organisations" by Chris Collison and Geoff Parcell), and sets out a number steps to launching, energising and sustaining communities of practice (networks) in an organisation.

1. Planning Gather together a list of potential participants. Use referral - ask individuals if they can recommend others in the organisation who should participate. Consider a broader membership to introduce diversity. Would your network benefit from having members NOT closely associated with your domain of interest - to bring in a different perspective?

2. Decide: go/no-go Check for duplication or overlap with other networks/groups, verify the need for the network and make a clear go/no-go decision. Is the scope realistic, or is the subject area too broad for a single network? Take some soundings from potential members and consider splitting to form two or more sub-networks if appropriate.

Getting started

3. Hold a face-to-face start-up workshop Ensure that this includes a social activity to build relationships and trust. If most of the interactions are likely to be via e-mail or telephone, it is important to build relationships face-to-face.

4. Draft a "charter" collectively Develop a simple "charter" which may include:

• the rationale and scope for the network,
• the key roles (facilitator, sponsor etc.),
• the expectations in terms of people's time commitment (do members need help in securing "air cover" from their managers?),
• a "code of conduct" - how members will work together, and key processes/tools,
• a sense of "what success looks like", and any appropriate KPIs. (but avoid over-burdening a network with measures at the early stages of its growth)

5. Consider tools for support Check the available tools and their distribution across the members, particularly for a network which crosses organisational boundaries.

6. Appoint a facilitator The responsibilities of the Network Facilitator, some of which, in practice, may be shared with others in the network, may include:

• organising network meetings/teleconferences;
• maintaining network distribution lists;
• owning and ensuring the maintenance of shared information/knowledge resources;
• monitoring the effectiveness of the network, and stimulating and prodding network members when appropriate;
• acting as a focal point for the network, both internally and for those outside the network

Note - a network facilitator need not be the "subject expert". Far more important is the ability of that person to involve and include others, and to work behind the scenes to keep the network "on the boil".

7. Set up an e-mail distribution list and send a launch e-mail Establish an e-mail distribution list for your network comprising the potential membership names identified. This should facilitate further communication. The Network facilitator should be identified as the owner of this, and can add or delete people from this distribution themselves. Send an initial e-mail to kick off the dialogue.

Building momentum

8. Seed the discussion with some questions Establish the behaviours by asking a question on behalf of a member with a particular need (have the members do it themselves if possible). In the early stages it is important to demonstrate responsiveness. The facilitator should be prepared to pick up the phone and press for answers behind the scenes.

9. Publicise the network What communications media exist within your organisation? Can you write a short news article in a relevant internal or external magazine which describes the network and its aims?

10. Advertise quick wins When you get answers to questions, or the transfer of ideas between members, celebrate and make sure that everyone knows

11. Monitor activity... Monitor the discussion forum/Q&A effectiveness:

• Frequency of contribution,
• Frequency of response.
• Number of unanswered questions
• For larger networks - number of joiners/leavers

12. Maintain connectivity Schedule regular teleconferences, summarise successes, develop a list of "frequently asked questions" and a shared team space/website.

Renewing commitment

13. Refine the membership For large networks, send an e-mail to existing members reminding them to let you know if they would like to be removed from the list. Better to have a smaller group of committed members, than a larger group with variable commitment.

14. Maintain face-to-face meetings Consider an annual face-to-face meeting to renew relationships and introduce any new members

15. Keep the focus on business problems Continue to solicit questions and answers - publicise more success stories.

16. Review performance How is the network performing in relation to its performance contract, mission, KPIs? Are there still regular examples of success stories?

17. Test commitment Don't be afraid to threaten to "switch off" the network and test the response of members. People will soon object if they strongly believe in it!

Is it time to "sunset" your community? Or to reinvent it? Consider Options Decide for the future:

• Continue?
• Celebrate & close?
• Redefine the deliverables/scope?
• Divide into sub-networks?

Conclusion

Launching and supporting successful communites of practice is one of the most effective ways to sustain your investment in knowledge management. It takes thought and effort to get started, but with the right people, and the steps outlined above, they can bring KM to life in any organisation.

A quick posting to record some thoughts on this extremeely useful and personaly satisfying day.

The OU hosted an event organised by the South East Leadership Academy yesterday on the value of Communities of Practice and Leadership. The day was split it two halfs; the morning for presentations from Ettiene Wengner, Nigel Paine and the team at LEAD in Lancaster University. The afternoon we broke into groups and discussed what CoPs meant to us, the issues and challenges surrounding their growth, adoption and so on. We returned for a panel session in which the breakout group questions were put to the panellists. All very good stuff and I enjoyed it enormously!

Met some very interesting and knowledgeable individuals, but the highlight for me was meeting Ettiene! And, he asked me to share my own story with the rest of the audience during the panel session! Don't laugh but I feel like the first guy picked for the footy team! In your face, £$%$£ [name removed for privacy reasons] –

Very interesting discussion on the nature of tension, conflict and the management of personal agenda in horizontal communities along with some practical insight and advice. A good day.

Have to go and prepare my own big day for Emerald now. Dr david Lamon will be here soon to help me facilitate a company wide conversaiton on the value, indeed the very idea of, community and what it means to su and to Publishers. I'm looking forward to it very much.

 

 

I can't tell you how pleased I am to find this TEDtalk on YouTube. I had the pleasure of listening to this same talk at Online Educa last year and it was one of the most powerful and startling presentations I've ever seen. 

Sugata Mitra's Hole in the Wall experiments, where an internet connected PC is embedded into the wall and uneducated indian street kids are left to stumble across it, figure out how it works and share that with each other is, simply, uplifting beyond words. 

 

The European eLearning summit is happening right now at the East Midlands Conference centre. I gave one of the talks yesterday, 'Emerald, Web 2.0 and our experiences in providing spaces for collaboaration, networking and informal learning'.

I hope it was ok, sometimes it's difficult to tell. I think it was good that the guy from Oracle who went before me (Jonathan Vinoskey) talked a lot about Web 2.0 in the workplace too, I think I was ble to build on that. 

Unfortunately not able to make the whole 3 days - other commitments - but they should have a good time. It was kinda pleasing to learn that this was a re-incarnation of EuroTAAC, the old authorware conference and one I have attended in past (I still hold a bit of a torch for authorware, dear old thing).

Still, it also reminded me why I bailed out of elearning 4/5 years ago. I mean I love the fact that a conference attracts really enthusiastic and commited (and very expert) practitioners I really do, but Oh My God!! don't let them present in  public - ever. Seriously.

Presenting to any group is hard, it's pretty nerve wracking stuff but don't make it harder on yourself by trying to hack code in front of everyone and race through your logic line by line at the speed of light then test the stuff LIVE - you really are asking for trouble and awkward silences. An informative and useful hour this does not make. 10 out of 10 for effort but really...

 

 

In the 2008 Horizon Report, they discuss various technology trends including. Their comments around Social Operating Systems is interesting:

The issue, and what social operating systems will resolve, is that today’s tools do not recognize the “social graph”—the network of relationships a person has, independent of any given networking system or address book; the people one actually knows, is related to, or works with. At the same time, credible information about your social graph is embedded all over the web: in the carbon-copy fields of your emails; in attendee lists from conferences you attend; in tagged Flickr photos of you with people you know; in your comments on their blog posts; and in jointly authored papers and presentations published online.

This is a good definition of what we need from an open layer that allows a transportable, open social graph that we can leverage across various applications.

This address a critical problem that we face right now that I described in Social Networking Entrepreneurial Opportunities on my SoCal CTO Blog.

Certainly, what we are seeing with OpenSocial and DataPortability represents a possible future state where we can avoid some of this issue. If we could focus on building our "destination" on top of a set of open protocols that provide us with the social graph for users but that allows us to control our destiny, I believe that's the right model in most cases. It reduces friction for end-users and still gives us the leverage you want.

What I found interesting and I disagreed with was the statement that:

The essential ingredient of next generation social networking, social operating systems, is that they will base the organization of the network around people, rather than around content.

First, I don’t necessarily consider the social operating system to be “next generation social networking” – rather it’s a layer that allows us to have transportable information between all the places that knows about our information. Social networking sits on top of this and provides interfaces that allow us to interact.

Second, I don’t agree that next generation social networking will be based around people rather than around content. My personal experience is that content and social networks are intertwined. Blogs are both content and a social network. There is a social network around del.icio.us, YouTube, Flickr, etc. I’m much more likely to form and keep a social network when there is common interest in some form of content. And as we see more and more niche networks forming – they will almost invariably form around content. In fact, the Social Operating System will make it more likely that common interest and content will be the tie that binds.

If you go to the introduction page for OpenSocial, you can see that it too focuses as much on content as it does on person to person. The image is great and shows that OpenSocial thinks of the social graph as being BOTH people and content.