The Happy Curmudgeon

If you are at all involved in the delivery of training via the use of technologies, you have probably seen, heard, or used the terms e-learning or social learning*. They have become common currency in the discussion of training and learning undertaken in non face-to-face training and education contexts.

Unlike the term “distance learning” which is an older term with a very clear and precise definition, both the terms e-learning and social learning lack clarity of definition to the extent that many practitioners who use the words don’t have clear ideas about what they themselves mean;  what is included and what the terms exclude. This is not an abstract issue of linguistics but a practical issue that has profound impact on both research and practice.

To have any meaningful discussion about how one can optimize “e-learning” or “social learning”, we must have some common agreed upon consensus about what activities the terms include and exclude. That consensus simply doesn’t exist. That’s not that uncommon for “new” things, and is not a problem in and of itself. The real problem is that people promoting e-learning and social learning do not realize the terms are vague and confusing. Or, they don’t care, in their zeal to deliver the “way” of learning to decision makers.

Does e-learning include ANY use of technology in learning? If that’s the case, then almost any learning that occurs on a phone, or computer, or even listening to the radio, becomes “e-learning”. Thus, almost everything can be characterized as e-learning. The problem with that is if almost everything is e-learning, how can we talk about it? Certainly, learning via a conference call is completely different than learning using some form of virtual reality platform that simulates a real world environment. They have almost nothing in common, yet get labeled as e-learning.

Or, for “social learning”, does that mean (as common sense would dictate) that social learning refers to any learning that is “social” (involving other people)? Once again, this is problematic, since it also excludes little in terms of learning. It includes traditional classrooms, chatting over coffee, use of facebook or twitter, and only excludes activities done in private (and one could argue that since things like books or video programs (even watched privately) have been created by other people, we could still classify them as social.)

The Implications Are Serious

People who make their livings in e-learning and social learning (and that includes well known people like Elliot Masie, Marcia Connor) are quick to track down and trumpet “studies” that talk about either the popularity or effectiveness of e-learning or social learning. But what are they talking about? The reality is we don’t know, and they probably don’t either. If you check around the Internet you will find “research” that suggests that e-learning is better than face-to-face instruction (you will also find the reverse), but it is almost universally the case that e-learning is left undefined. Or, the study actually looks at only one delivery method, (let’s say computer delivered instruction), and generalizes to any other methods that fall under the e-learning or social learning rubric.

The result is confusion, and at the extreme, unintentional or intentional deception. Truth, unfortunately, is the first to fall in the face of evangelical technological zeal applied to learning and education. We’ve seen it before.

How are companies supposed to decide if they should use “e-learning” or “social learning” in their environments, when nobody, even in the field, can come up with consensus definitions that mean something. They can’t. Could that be the point?

Maybe the vague and vacuous definitions here are so prevalent because it is to the benefit of e-learning and social learning experts to have confused and baffled customers? Intentional? No, probably unintentional but the result is the same.

It’s more likely that some of the early adopters (and thus the people who coined these phrases) are in fact not capable of developing tight, formal definitions of the terms, and perhaps not interested in doing so.  Early adopters of technology tend to be less interested in the objective usefulness of the “thing” they have adopted, and more interested in telling the world about the magical thing they have adopted. Like a cat that catches a mouse and drops it at Master’s feet!

Do they care that loose definitions mean that it will be impossible to actually assess return on investment? Probably not.

Do they care that companies may plow money into one species of e-learning when another technique might be better? Probably not.

The blind zeal and the loose definitions go together. And there is tremendous resistance to anyone who points out the incoherence and uselessness of the words.

A Prescription

First understand that the words e-learning and social learning (as used to refer to technologically based learning solutions) can include almost anything, exclude almost nothing, and mislead due to vagueness.

For Learning/Training Professionals

1. Stop using e-learning and social learning as terms in the training and education field. Period.
2. If that’s not acceptable (which it won’t be to the zealots) make sure to define what YOU mean when you use the terms, by grounding your explanations in what the term excludes and what the term includes. If you can’t do that, you are talking BS.
3. Listen to yourself as you speak, or expound online about e-learning and social learning, and drop the self-centeredness and realize that even your colleagues and fellow zealots do not share your particular meaning of the term you are using.
4. Work through professional associations to build consensus about the definition of these terms, if you refuse to eliminate them from your vocabulary.
5. Start asking questions of others who use the terms. You do NOT have common understanding unless you work to create common understanding.

If you are a decision maker or executive trying to make sense of the e-learning and social learning world, stay tuned because we’ll be helping you navigate this muddled up space by providing you with some guidelines.

*Footnote: Wonder what the real original meaning of “social learning” is/was? It was/is a term coined by noted psychologist  Albert Bandura circa 1950’s and onward who developed Social Learning Theory, which has almost no relationship to the use of the term by “social learning” zealots. One wonders why people involved in the use of technology for learning would not be aware of this, and end up using a term that already exists. But then again, I’d guarantee that almost none of the current social learning gurus have ever read Bandura, or know what is contained in his work over decades.