Way ‘back in the day’ I had to secure recorded statements from people. The statements were transcribed, often analyzed, and sometimes used in litigation. Before pressing “record” (oh, yes an actual tape recorder) I was required to state why I wanted/needed to record the statement and also get permission to record. (I believe in NY, you need permission – at least at that time – to record a conversation on the phone.)

Anyway, today it’s a bit different because we can easily and inexpensively record sans tape recorder and phone. Still, even today, if I must record, I’ll still ask for permission and explain that the recording will be used for the purpose of capturing answers to questions. I let people know that the recording won’t be shared (or will be, if that’s the intent; like an educational podcast). I have found that recording statements is a valuable way to improve my listening skills and expand on questions and answers. I’m not worried about furiously writing notes that I will later try to decipher. There’s a ton of tools out there for this type of thing, even the Smart pen.

I’ve found G-Recorder works well consistently and has no learning curve. G-Recorder records Skype calls and automatically saves them to a Gmail folder as an mp3 file.

Here’s a video of how it works along with “The Lions Sleep Tonight” playing in the background. (Earworm alert: Wimoweh, wimoweh, wimoweh, wimoweh.) While I use it for research, I think it would be a valuable tool to create free and easy podcasts with one person or as many people as Skype currently allows (100?).

Think in terms of m-learning in 2010. Potential vs. what is actually happening. What is happening RIGHT NOW as in, “I’m doing it” and not just “planning on doing it” or “hoping I’ll be able to do it.”

If you selected 100 employees randomly and asked them to find the answers to two or three job-related questions on their mobile device, how many could find relevant information in a reasonable (before someone says ‘never mind’) amount of time?

This comic reminded me of a talk E-Learning is what? (jump to slide 5) by Allison Rossett I heard early in the year in Australia. She talked about what IS actually happening in e-learning vs. what MIGHT happen with e-learning in the future. (Her study has limitations – which she outlines – but still..)

Do we have ten employees who have already looked up the answers and are using The Idiot Test app on their iPhone while the other 90 are looking for their glasses/browser/mobile device/favorite geek/exit? Take “just a sec” and let me know how big the skill gap is from your vantage point.

Trent Batson writes about research collaboration in the ephemera of Web 2.0

“Part of research now is not just the research, but keeping abreast of new collaboration technologies. We all need to be ethnographers.”

Absofreakinlutely!

An ethnographer gathers information about everyday life so they can understand how and why people do what they do. I am an ethnographer (this picture provides some proof of that or, explains the origin of the humungous line I have running between my eyebrows). I didn’t always think like an ethnographer as an educator/trainer in the field as much as I do now, as a researcher. I should have. Perhaps I just didn’t think about it as consciously as I should have.

What is the ethnographic study of learning in the workplace?

It is the examination of the ways in which work gets done. It leads to the identification of the kinds of new collaboration technologies people could benefit from. It results in you making recommendations for tools that can provide support. Some thoughts on how you incorporate ethnographic study into your practice…

• Step back from the problem. Observe people in their job and then step back from things and see it as a foreigner would. How are people interacting with their environment?
• Know people. Immerse yourself in your learners environment and take “fieldnotes.” I am always amazed at what I learn. What you think you know about the environment is often not accurate and is forever changing.
• Talk to people. Conduct informal interviews with individuals and groups. Ask questions. Get out of your L&D cubicle.
• Look for trends. Ethnographers analyze and identify patterns and trends even if they don’t like what they see. This type of thoughtful analysis saves a lot of time and heartache.

You can do this in the online environment too. How are people interacting? What work are they doing? It’s been called webnography, a portmanteau of web and ethnography. This type of research also goes down the road of Internet marketing and, at least among researchers, has its critics because it lacks some common practices of traditional ethnography. Jenny Ryan writes about webnography. I just started following her work.

Now I’m wondering if I could add ethnographer to my job title…more interesting conversations about ‘what you do?’

I’ve been reading The Sign of Three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce (Advances in Semiotics), edited by Umberto Eco and Thomas Sebeok as part of an inquiry class I’m taking. A tidbit on the title from the preface:

“There is the obvious referral (renvoi) to Doyle’s novel-length chronicle, “The Sign of the Four,” or “The Sign of Four,” which first appeared in Lippincott’s magazine, later in book form, in 1819. Then there was our driving compulsion to send our readers back to the funhouse of rampant triplicities, such as are discussed in Sebeok’s introductory three-card monte.”

“Funhouse of rampant trilicities.” It practically screams nerd doesn’t it? (The footnotes are nearly as long as the chapters). However, it is instructional in the context of the study of inquiry and I appreciate the passion with which it is written . And, reading about Sherlock Holmes and others in the context of the study of inquiry has been an interesting exercise. This class, I think, is getting me closer to understanding what I really “do” for a living although I still struggle to explain it to others.

For example, I was sitting at an indoor soccer facility waiting for my daughter’s practice to end and I was reading the book when another mother said, “hey, what are you reading?” Rather than trying to explain the subject of the book (because, let’s face it, I couldn’t do it justice) I took the easy way out and just told her I was doing homework. The “good for you!” conversation followed. When she asked what I was studying at school, I said instructional design. So that’s like architecture? Hmmm…no. Go ahead. Laugh. But now take it one step further…I research that stuff by observing, reading, following trends, asking questions, and reading- books, blogs, and research papers. Which means what exactly? I inquire. Maybe I should just say that – I seek understanding through inquiry. Doesn’t that sound all mysterious and nerdy? Might as well paint an “L” on my forehead.

Another example. I was helping my third grader do his math homework. We were discussing a particular word problem and he said…

“you don’t know. You just know Brandon Hall Research and reading and stuff. Dad’s an engineer. I’ll wait until he get’s home.”

So, I try to explain again what I do. He is not interested. “I read and stuff.” I do “Brandon Hall Research stuff.” For the love of…inquiry.

What do you do? Could you explain it to an eight year old? As for me, I read and stuff.

So, this is what’s happening when I ask myself âWhat {the hell} are you working on? I only share this because I’m a researcher…

From Why That’s Delightful Via Boing Boing.

Simple enough question right? “(Just) what are you working on?” is a bit sarcastic and suggests you’re not really working on much.”Ooooh…what are you working on?” suggests excitement and interest. “What {the hell} are you working on?” is a bit hostile and suggests you’re not working on what you should be working on.

At Brandon Hall Research, we ask the question, “what are you working on?,” weekly so we can share information and ideas. (We do it without the sarcasm, cursing, or hostility of course because that’s just not cool.)

So, what am I working on? I’m so glad you asked! You always ask such great questions!

I should probably tell you about my process. This isn’t linear – some things happen concurrently. And all through the process I second guess myself…is this still something someone would want an answer for? Why?

• Determine what question needs an answer (no sense answering a question no one wants the answer to)
• Round one reading
• Write
• Categorize
• Draft Table of Contents
• Decide what additional info I’ll need (survey, study, etc.)
• Round two reading (biblio trail from round one)
• Write
• Categorize
• Read some more
• Write some more
• Categorize some more
• Talk to people
• Set up Google alerts
• Read, categorize information from alerts (many blogs)
• Talk to some more people
• Gather papers, etc. from an online educational database search; read & categorize
• Stand back, take a look
• Sort
• Second draft table of contents
• Write it
• Finalize my conclusion
• Provide resources

My work now is in the sorting process for two topics – instructional strategies around generational issues and educational social networking in the enterprise (services, application, as part of an LMS).

Like working through a stack of buttons, I see if it makes sense to sort all this information into colors, style, number of holes, material, or some other way you’ll find useable. I decide if the sort is too large. Does it need to be subdivided?

I have to say over the past couple of years at Brandon Hall Research, we’re working on the most research we’ve ever worked on at one time. So, when someone asks, what are you working on at Brandon Hall Research, I say a lot.

Warning: this post is full of digressions, contradictions, and tangents. (I’m just saying…)

I read an older Pew Publication recently on the behavior and traits of 18-25-year-old U.S. Americans (born 1981 and 1988) for some research I’m currenly doing on “generational learning styles” (don’t get me going on that – I’m a mess about it!). Although the report is a year old, I don’t think much has changed in the past year as far as this study goes.

Interesting when I look at these findings based on my own experiences as an 18-25 year old American in 1982-1987 (although some of what I remember is probably blocked out, lost due to blacking out, or forgotten entirely). To give you context, I was born on the same day and year as Kirk Hammett, from Metallica. I’m part of the Generation Jones – between the X’s and the boomers or, as I like to call it, the Marcia, Marcia, Marcia generation.

Here’s Generation Next, the subject of the study:

• Half send or receive text message over the phone daily (double 26-40-year olds). [My text messages were written on paper and roughly said, "I'll be home at dark" (for my parents) or (for my friends/enemies) were passed in class or left in lockers. I frequently used emoticons on my actual face - the one-eyebrow-up was my hallmark. I would say half of my generation used 'text messaging' with the technology known as a pen.]
• Four-in-ten have created personal profiles on social networking sites. [My social network site was the bottom of the driveway where I hung out with neighborhood friends. Nobody's parents would take us anywhere and they didn't want us in the house either. The information I shared with my friends then was similar to the open-book information I now display for the world. So only 8-10 people listened to my inane crap then and now slightly more. Suckas.]
• Eight-in-ten say new technology makes people lazier. I had to hide to be lazy. If I was caught lazing around, I was given a job to do. Technology was a clothespin out on the clothesline. I’m reminded of a recent conversation with my 20 year-old nephew and his suggestion that he thought technology would take us to the point where we did not need arms or legs. Not that he didn’t want arms and legs, but that he wanted to live in a world where he didn’t have to use them if he didn’t want to. I have agreed that the new technology of my generation – the dryer – made people lazier.]
• Half say immigrants to the U.S. strengthen the country. [I am a first generation Scottish-American. My parents are immigrants so I can''t really comment on this other than to say I believe it is true - then and now. Plus then, I would've gotten smacked on the side of the head if I didn't think it was true. My own kids today get a lot more information on diversity in general.]
• Are generally less critical (and less cynical) of government regulation and business. [I speak cynicism fluently as do many friends my age and many of my kids friends. Workin' for the man. Workin' for the man. 18 or 40 we're all workin' for the man. Only the super-cyncial admit to being cynical in a survey.]
• Are in close contact with their parents. [See first bullet point “ I'll be home at dark." This is an interesting dynamic. We've probably all read stories about the helicopter parent who called their kid's boss at work to question a poor performance review. I'm not sure what, if any, impact this has on workplace learning but I think it may. My feeling is that there is a need for greater performance support.]
• Half have gotten a tattoo, dyed their hair an untraditional color, or have body piercing on body parts other than the ear (1/3rd have tattoos). Tattoos in the 70s-80s were primarily found on the skin of those in the military, bikers (Harley style), rock stars, and those in prison. [Brian Jackson lists five reasons people get tattoos today - loved ones, religious, military service, mistake, just for fun. I'd add anger, celebration of an event, love of pain, and love of art. But this is generation "me" or generation "look at me" we're talking about so permanent markings doesn't surprise me. Does anyone else see a demand here for more laser surgeons in the future? The looming talent shortage (if you buy it) along with this trait are why conservative HR depts. scramble to update policies about appearance. No tattoos is replaced with 'only tasteful tattoos.' I'd like to be on that committee...]
• 1/3rd follow what’s going on in the government and public affairs. [I have to admit, they do a better job at this than I did. Government was a parent thing. Now kids have to get community hours to fulfill graduation requirements for high school. We only did community service if we got caught doing something illegal.]
• Twice as likely (than older generations) to name a family member, teacher, or mentor as hero. [I would've named someone famous I think. Probably some rock star. Perhaps I would've named a family member if I had been more close. The Jones Generation are a bunch of basement kids.]
• More comfortable with globalization and new ways of doing work. [I think so. I still thought then that it was good to have one, stable job. How long have you been in your current job? I don't even know what my job will look like 5 years from now.]
• Top goals: fortune and fame. [I'm reminded of a cartoon: how to be a famous blogger (1) become famous, (2) become a blogger, (3) become a famous blogger. (And, accept advertising for the fortune part.)]
• Feel that educational and job opportunities are better for them today than for the previous generations but are concerned with getting into and graduating from college. [It's not hard to get into an online college. But it often is hard to get into many f2f colleges. However, there are more and more online education opportunities every year. They are not restricted by space. I think this creates opportunities. I don't think I dared to flunk out of college because I would've gotten smacked on the side of the head again. And, lost my funding. I think my generation felt the same way - that I had better opportunities then the previous generation.]
• 86% use the Internet at least occasionally (nearly all college grads do while 77% of non-college graduates do). (Gen X=91%, Baby Boomers=73%, Seniors 46%) [I do wonder though about losing the ability to think deeply. When everything is at your fingertips, why remember? What does it mean not to have to try to remember who played Jed Clampett on the Beverly Hillbillies? Or what the heck the lyrics to Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song were? What does that do to your brain?]

(BTW that’s Buddy Ebsen and “on we sweep with threshing oar,
Our only goal will be the western shore! Ah, ah!)

Regarding generational differences and learning, I’m really not convinced that we need to create different instructional strategies any more than we need to create different instructional strategies to address learning styles. To me, it’s an issue of individual experiences, context, and preferences.

Most people, regardless of age, want to chit chat with their friends, get a little rebellious, and share their background & interests with others. And, I think they understand that most technology might make them lazier.

While I recognize different characters and traits of a group bound by a time period in a particular part of the world, I’m not convinced generational differences mean that much when designing instruction. The fact that the net gen texts all the time so therefore needs immediate feedback doesn’t change the non-texters also might need immediate feedback. Yes, we may need to address abilities (for all learners) but I think it’s more about the need to focus on how to teach and learn. If technologies are used to make that easier and better, then we do it. In short, I’m not seeing a lot of research in this area that doesn’t suggest the entire issue of generational learning styles is hype.

I know only fellow 40+ers have hung in to the end of this post. There weren’t enough pictures for the 18 year olds ; )

You know how they are…

I had the pleasure of participating in a webinar yesterday that had a lot of great chat questions including the one above. I tried answering it within the text chat window but didn’t get into the depth so, here is some information from Brandon Hall Research that provides a decent explanation of the differences along with an article that I thought might be useful.

Hope this does a better job than my one sentence chat box response.

I’m taking a qualitative research class. It’s a condensed, one semester, class where we do a full QR project on a very small scale. I’m exploring the experience of being part of an online community when it precedes a face-to-face event. As part of my mini literature review, I ran across this study by Dianne Conrad called Deep in the Hearts of Learners. It’s also a small scale study but provides, I think, some good insight into what makes an online community.

(The author suggests) Participation in online learning activities exists before community, contributes to community, and is the vehicle for maintaining community, eventually becoming the measure of community health. Greater senses of community were not reflected by the learners in the online environment per se but the shared character and common purpose of the online community.

Critical difference lies in the nature of the enterprise. Shared character and common purpose—the glue that holds community together and forges an entity where there was none—emanate from an inherent affinity to purpose, passion, or pursuit.

In support of this, Conrad cites Wallace’s (1999) physical example a carload of elevator riders. “Their ‘groupness’ was not apparent until the car jerked to an unexpected halt between floors. From that moment on, a shared and immediate experience created a new social dynamic among them.” {see article for full cite}

When you hold this up to communities you belong to, or have belonged to in the past, does it hold true? My Master’s program was online. The University created an elevator which I paid to ride. Each class started with a halt and turned into a ride to the top with some stoppages along the way. The edublogosphere I think is similar. When you create your first post you get on the elevator…alone…start pressing buttons and doors to new communities. These are examples of successful communities I belong to.

The unsuccessful communities seem to be an elevator only. Sometimes with no buttons. Sometimes with empty floors. Usually you ride alone.

Creating an elevator is easy to grasp. Creating the ‘unexpected halt’ which serves as a catalyst for community is a bit harder for me to grasp.

I’ve written about Internet friendships before after I joined Facebook back in June. I ran across a post on Smart Mobs yesterday that featured highlights of a current ongoing research study by Dr. Will Reader of Sheffield Hallam University about how blogs and texts could affect relationships. The study is funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. The SmartMobs post references a summary by Reuters of Dr. Reader’s talk yesterday at a meeting sponsored by the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Not so surprising tidbits from Dr. Reader, an evolutionary psychologist….

• More online friends does not mean more ‘close’ friends. The key (to close friendship), Dr. Reader said, is face-to-face interaction where “people can interpret social clues such as laughs and smiles that help determine if others are friends to be counted on.” (‘counted on’  probably means they show up at your house to help load the truck on moving day.)
• Nearly all ‘close’ friends require f2f (face-to-face) contact.
• Making friends is costly (time, energy) so…one of the possibilities is that changing the nature of networks can decrease the cost of maintaining friendships.

The BA (British Association for the Advancement of Science) also summarized some of Dr. Reader’s research…

While online social networks are very unlikely to ever replace real-life social networks, it is possible that their ability to aid communication may bring about a change in the size and structure of real-life social networks in the future.

I would say that, with Facebook anyway, the size and structure of my RL social network is growing. The ability to connect with people I haven’t seen in awhile, people in my community with similar interests, etc. grows my RL network. The RL connections/reconnections would not have happened without the online social network (at least for me).

Some personal virtual/real friendship experiences…

• I was introduced to Joan Vinall-Cox by her blog. I then had the pleasure of meeting her while I was in Toronto. She blogged about it here. I felt (as Joan characterized) a richer presence after meeting f2f. I think much of that richness came from the opportunity to talk about the stuff we blog about – the kind of stuff others may not have much interest in talking about. But that richer presence, that closeness, came from our online relationship prior to meeting f2f. If I had just met Joan at a workshop in Toronto, we would not have had that connection. (digression alert…I bored my family to death when explaining online social networks [they ASKED first]…not only did they see me as a cyclops, they wouldn’t/couldn’t make the leap. One of my sisters said the Internet was a fad. I know, right?? New name: Dino-sister.) Anyway…
• I was an online learner at Capella Univeristy. I never met my classmates f2f but knew a lot about them based on our online conversations and felt sad when our classes ended. I think meeting f2f would have made the relationships richer.
• I am a f2f learner at Syracuse University. I haven’t met everyone in my class yet. It takes 3-4 meetings to actually meet everyone f2f during our 10 minute breaks. I have a greater connection with the two classmates that I met on Facebook before I started class. (We joined in the break out group in class last night because we kind of ‘knew each other’ already via Facebook).
• New Hire Orientation at a company I worked for was f2f. When learners who met as new hires later attended live online learning classes together, they interacted more with each other than people who had never met f2f. Richer, closer.

I mostly agree with the research (not sure about the cost factor) and it supports research around the effectiveness of blended learning experiences (at least by the most common definition of blended – f2f + e-learning). Online learning (even just introductions) should precede (and follow) f2f learning to develop richer, closer relationships and richer learning experiences. I’m not sure any of my online friends will show up at my house though when it comes time to move. That’s a job for dino-sister.