I was happy to be asked to participate in a Blog Book Tour for the newly released book Learning in 3D: Adding a New Dimension to Enterprise Learning and Collaboration by Karl M. Kapp and Tony O’Driscoll. The idea of a book tour is to build a discussion around the concepts in a book and to bring thinking about 3D virtual worlds for learning and collaboration into the forefront of discussions in the e-learning space.

This is stop #14 on the tour.

When it comes to virtual worlds for learning, I’m most frequently asked, “who’s doing it?” and “is it working?” Corporations are slow to put resources in areas that are new and, although we’ve been talking about virtual worlds for awhile, they still are new in the world of corporate training. On that point, the authors note that the virtual learning marketplace is just now beginning an accelerated growth path.

I don’t have to look much further than our (Brandon Hall Research’s) Excellence in Learning Awards to see that. We didn’t even have a category for virtual worlds in prior to 2008 and that first year, had just two entries. For the most recent awards program, in 2009, we had 6 entries. Our members also started showing an interest in research about virtual worlds and in 2007 and 2008 we released several reports around the subject.

Chapter 6 in Learning in 3D highlights ten case studies from Microsoft/Sodexo, Cisco, Ernst & Young, U.S. Holocaust Museum, Catt Laboratory, Loyalist College, Ball State University, Penn State University, BP, and IBM. When it comes to the question “who’s doing it?”, you’ll find some great examples. I’ll add another, silver award winner, Vestas Organization and their “Vesta World,” focusing on effectiveness, i.e. “is it working?”

On the 5 different programs Vestas launched by the end of 2008 the pre-test showed an average knowledge and skills level of 37% (where the percentage equals the proportion of correct answers). The post-test showed an average knowledge and skills level of 83%. The average calculated increase in knowledge and skills was therefore 45% points and the average Total Learning achieved was 73%, where the ”Total Learning” refers to how much of the gap was filled between what was known by the learners before the training and a perfect score of 100% after the training. The average Total Learning for all measured classroom training in Vestas in 2008 was 59%.

E-learning Program Manager Peter Christensen said, “We set a very ambitious Total Learning target for e-learning programs in Vestas World. The target was 60 % which is higher than the standard target for effective classroom training. Reaching 73% is a real victory and it proves that we made the right choices in our implementation of the concept.”

What’s exciting about Vestas is that they embraced the uniqueness a virtual world offers and left behind the classic top-down learning style. They said this led to more effective learning.

The business needs and issues were met by building a unique Virtual World that introduced a visual style that all employees can relate to as a global, unified Vestas style. In addition to this a completely new tone of voice and learning style in Vestas World was introduced. This tone of voice was peer-to-peer based and meant that Vestas World set a very high quality standard for the e-learning programs to live up to. The effect of this quality level has been that it shows the learners that Vestas put great emphasis on learning which has also had a positive effect on learning effectiveness. The learners have basically been more motivated.

Here’s a trailer for Vestas World. I hope it will inspire you to explore virtual worlds.

I was able to publish some research last week on blended learning, working from a hospital where my son was recovering from an emergency appendectomy. [Good news is that he is well and back to his cheeky 13-year old self]. I was so impressed with how well trained the hospital staff was – it showed not only technically but in consistency and culture. Very cool. I guess you can spot a well-trained group by the lack of problems. My only gripe was my own lack of preparedness for working without an internet connection. I’m a follower of David Allen and have gotten away from organizing my work so that I have an “offline” folder to grab. So, all I had was my Blackberry and an offline [read: useless] laptop.

Anyway, I collaborated with several people on the blended learning research report including Curt Bonk and his entire blended learning research team. They wrote a section in the report that relates to strategic planning for blended learning in corporate training settings in 5 countries – Taiwan, China, Korea, U.S. and the U.K. Curt also has a book coming out about his R2D2 model called “Empowering Online Learning: 100+ Activities for Reading, Reflecting, Displaying, and Doing.” It’s being published by Jossey-Bass and co-authored with Ke Zhang. You can read about the model at: Introducing the R2D2 Model: Online learning for the diverse learners of this world, Curtis J Bonk, Ke Zhang. Distance Education. Melbourne: Aug 2006. Vol. 27, Iss. 2; p. 249 (16 pages). You can also read more about it here in Curt’s blog post. Here’s info from the abstract:

The R2D2 method “read, reflect, display, and do”is a new model for designing and delivering distance education, and in particular, online learning. Such a model is especially important to address the diverse preferences of online learners of varied generations and varied Internet familiarity. Four quadrants can be utilized separately or as part of a problem-solving process: the first component primarily relates to methods to help learners acquire knowledge through online readings, virtual explorations, and listening to online lectures and podcasts. As such, it addresses verbal and auditory learners. The second component of the model focuses on reflective activities such as online blogs, reflective writing tasks, self-check examinations, and electronic portfolios. In the third quadrant, visual representations of the content are highlighted with techniques such as virtual tours, timelines, animations, and concept maps. Fourth, the model emphasizes what learners can do with the content in hands-on activities including simulations, scenarios, and real time cases. In effect, the R2D2 model is one means to organize and make sense of the diverse array of instructional possibilities currently available in distance education. It provides new ways of learning for diverse online students, and demonstrates easy-to-apply learning activities for instructors to integrate various technologies in online learning. When thoughtfully designed, content delivered from this perspective should be more enriching for learners. The R2D2 model provides a framework for more engaging, dynamic, and responsive teaching and learning in online environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Looks like a great read!

Psst…if you are creating syndicated content to be read in a reader via a handheld device like a Blackberry, consider making the full text available vs. just a portion with a link to the full post. I didn’t read those this past week and suspect many wouldn’t because it requires extra clicks and time.

I think as instructional designers, we’re sometimes prone to providing too much information to our learners. This is especially true when we’re designing blended learning programs which tend to have more touch points for learners.

I came across this post from Tim Ferriss who was writing about the short-term email outages at RIM a couple of weeks ago which had Blackberry users frantic. He compared Blackberries to the top anti-productivity product of all-time- marijuana:

In 2005, a psychiatrist at King’s College in London administered IQ tests to three groups: the first did nothing but perform the IQ test, the second was distracted by e-mail and ringing phones, and the third was stoned on marijuana. Not surprisingly, the first group did better than the other two by an average of 10 points. The e-mailers, on the other hands, did worse than the stoners by an average of 6 points.

The effects on long-term memory when stoned include remembering otherwise forgotten events (when consciously trying to remember) and spontaneously remembering things that have not been thought of in years, often memories that are the wrong ones, not the ones desired. The effects on short-term memory when stoned include shortened memory span for conversations including forgetting the start of a sentence before it is finished, forgetting what the conversation is about before it has ended, and logically (intelligible) completing a sentence even though the start has been forgotten. False memories occurring when stoned include thinking you said something that you’ve only thought about saying, thinking something is a memory when it turns out to be a fantasy, and deja  vu. State-specific memory occurs when the events while stoned are stored in memory but cannot be retrieved in an ordinary state of consciousness (but can when stoned again). Reading comprehension while stoned decreases remembrance of what was read (Tart, 1971).

Can we compare the distractions of email and ringing phones to the distraction of being presented with too much information? I think so. Remember the “seven plus or minus two” rule published by George Miller? Miller described working memory capacity as seven plus or minus two chunks of information (Miller, 1956). Clark (2003) went on to add that chunk size is relative to prior experience (experts are able to use their limited capacity to greater advantage than novices because they can bring larger chunks of information into it – they use schemas). Learning requires the active transformation of content from the environment into new knowledge and skills in memory than can be accessed when needed on the job. Working memory is where active processing and learning take place. One major role of instruction is to keep working memory from getting overloaded so that its limited capacity can be devoted the learning process. Attention is an important cognitive process to manage the limited capacity of working memory (Clark, 2003).

Today’s younger workers are multi-taskers. An article in this month’s HR Magazine cites a study by the staffing firm Spherion indicating 90% of 18-24 year olds feel that listening to an iPod while working improves job satisfaction and productivity. A research contractor for a defense contractor, Susan Revillar Bramlett – in the same article – says “the constant stimuli from video and computer games have caused millennials to be bored if there isn’t enough information coming in to keep our brains busy.”

If “distractions” (20 web links, IMing during a presentation, etc.) harm on-the-job performance due to decreased memory capacity, we might want to revisit the seven plus or minus two rule.

Gary has a great post on the important implications for the management of organizational work and for learning related to information overload that’s a must read.

References:
Miller, G.A. (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63: 81-97.

Clark, R. (2003) Building expertise: Cognitive methods for training and performance improvement. ISPI, Washington, D.C.

Tart, C. (1971) On Being Stoned. Science and Behavior Books: Palo Alto, California. Retrieved herePhoto: Simone Van Den Berg, dreamstime.com

I just don’t know. I’m always a little skeptical of the headlines about the differences in generations and learning – the digital natives vs. the digital immigrants. I understand the change in thinking patterns and recognize the need to change the way we teach. Shame on those who haven’t recognized that yet. My skepticism comes from my dislike of painting groups with large paint rollers. I know a lot of immigrants that trump the technical skills of natives and have seen it in the training room – someone can text message in the dark but can’t resize and move a window on their desktop. I know there are an equal amount of stories on the immigrants…desktop? there’s nothing on top of my desk! Hence, my dislike of broad labels.

But what about non-technology stuff associated with those under 25? I’ve always wanted to research the generation topic in depth – you know, get at the empirical stuff. So when Danah Boyd at aphonenia described Jean Twenge’s book Generation Me as having a “shitload of data” I felt the need to read it and so I’ve just bought it and look forward to reading it. I wanted to get at the ‘changes in the brains’ vs. the ‘changes in technology.’ Danah’s comments on the book, and narcissism in particular, are something we should all recognize as educators.

Twenge does an amazing job at outlining how our schools have become completely useless at educating because it’s more important to make students feel good than to be critical of their work.

What options does this leave us in the workplace? I’m sure most of us build safe environments for our learners – places where mistakes are OK and encouraged. But what about critical feedback? How’s that working for the under-25 crowd? In my experience many left their job within 2-3 years. They had become educational sponges – taking all the online classes, attending all the webinars, getting professional certificates, going off to boot camp training. Did they leave because they couldn’t get what they wanted – what they felt they deserved?

I am a mid-40s digital immigrant with three kids – a teen, a tween, and a pre-tween (this makes me a queen I think : ). They are classified as “Gen Y” or “Net Gen” – a real petri dish for observing generational differences.

My kids are narcissistic I’m sure but I tell them they haven’t done their best (when they haven’t) and they survive. I guess this is something not all parents would say and I think that’s unfortunate. I know I’m making mistakes – my best child-raising advice was given out before I was a parent – but I think I’m raising kids that might just be able to take criticism and use it constructively. At least that’s my story today. Hopefully whoever trains them at their first job won’t  face tears or hostility when their work is criticized.

Here is a link to an E-Learning 101 report I wrote. (2 MBs, PDF, Zipped) You are encouraged to share this report with colleagues and post it on your Web site and/or your organizations Intranet, citing Brandon Hall Research as the source. (This report may not, however, be modified or resold.) More free downloads are available when you sign up for the Brandon Hall Research weekly newsletter (bottom left of this blog).

• What is e-learning?
• What types of organizations use e-learning?
• How do you know whether e-learning is right for your organizations?
• What is e-learning used for?
• How does someone learn online?
• What if someone is not very good on the computer?
• What does e-learning look like?
• How is e-learning different from Web sites?
• What type of interaction is used in e-learning?
• Why would I use traditional classroom instruction over e-learning?
• What different types of e-learning tools are available?
• What type of team does an organization need to implement e-learning?
• How do I know what tools and methods are right for my organization?
• What industry standards are associated with e-learning?
• What is asynchronous and synchronous e-learning?
• What is blended learning?
• What type of infrastructure is required to support e-learning?
• What are the advantages/disadvantages associated with e-learning?
• How do you measure the effectiveness of e-learning?
• How long does it take to develop a typical e-learning course?
• What are the various delivery systems for e-learning?
• What is an LMS? LCMS?
• What is beyond the e-learning of today?

This primer includes a sixteen page glossary of e-learning terms from ADDIE to WYSIWYG.

When my co-worker Tom Werner and I were working on setting up our WordPress blogs, we ran across SuccessFactor’s blog (which we liked the look of) and their post that day was about Bob Sutton’s book The No Asshole Rule . It looked like a good book so I bought it and started reading it.

Featured in the book, and listed on SuccessFactors Web site, is CEO Lars Dalgaard’s practice of having employees sign contracts in which they commit to not acting like assholes.  Check out SucccesFactors list (especially #5) five founding principles.  The ‘no jerks’ principle is expanded upon by Dalgaard:

“No jerks! Our organization will consist only of people that absolutely love what we do, with a white hot passion. We will have utmost respect for the individual in a collaborative, egalitarian, and meritocratic environment – no blind copying, no politics, no parochialism, no silos, no games, no cynicism, no arrogance – just being good!”

Yes! Exactly. Being surrounded with people who love their work equates to happiness and apparently increased productivity. See happiness is the best productivity tool.

How do jerks impact your training efforts and how do you deal with them? Here are some ideas for traditional stand-up trainers that I used.

When you notice that someone’s behavior is affecting others in the room, meet with them on a break…

[STATE ISSUE] Rick, I noticed you’re coming in late after a break and then asking questions to catch up. [ASK ABOUT ISSUE] Help me understand why this is happening. [LISTEN TO ISSUE]. Sue, I’ve got this big sale and I’ve had to make phone calls – that’s more important than this training class. [REVIEW WHAT WAS SAID] Rich, you really need…(time to make calls, whatever) and I need you to learn…(new product, process, whatever). [ASK FOR IDEAS] What ideas do you have to…[WORK OUT AN AGREEMENT] If I do X, then you’ll not walk in late….

What if you have to deal with it right then – while in the classroom with the whole group or if it’s a group issue? Same thing but you’ll have to step out of your trainer role to fix it.

Stop (no one is engaged anymore). Sit (same as the group). State issue (I see that you’re all rolling your eyes). Ask about issue (what’s up). Listen (we don’t want to be here on a Saturday). Review (We are all here because we have to complete this training class outside of normal work hours. We can’t change that.). Ask for ideas (Listen). Work out an agreement (If I talk to your manager tomorrow about the need to find alternate times for training like this, then will you hang in there until we’ve accomplished our goals here). Continue teaching and check in frequently to make sure everyone’s OK with how the agreement is going.

Oh, by the way, if you’re brave enough, here’s the link to ARSE: The Asshole Rating Self Exam.

Photo:
Rainn Wilson, who plays Dwight Schrute, the martial-arts-obsessed kiss-up on NBCs The Office from New York Magazine.

I haven’t read the book but this excerpt makes it sound like a worthwhile read for leaders wishing to create a learning organization “how lack of leadership skills may “hinder development of your knowledge workers.”

Learning in Action