Comments on: Definitional Problems Damage the E-Learning/Social Learning Field

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:50:00 +0000

Shower inspired analogy:

Much of the eStuff we see is like a prosthesis. Where we either:

1) Cut off a limb that works perfectly and replace it with a culturally unsustainable prosthesis.

- or -

2) Simply attach another prosthetic limb to already existing limbs and expect great things to happen (more efficiency).

We aren’t at the bionic science (or perspective) stage. Yet. At the moment we can’t make it better, faster, stronger (cheaper) simply by bolting on a plastic arm with a bottle pincher.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:13:49 +0000

Within my organization, I’m really only concerned with the definitions that the organization has for processes and solutions. I’ve been gently trying to convince the organization for quite some time (half a decade) that the application of a label instantly causes a stovepiping effect. Removal of the label, particularly a label that implies compartmentalized modality, will be seriously beneficial.

This year, I think we’re going to make some progress in establishing some commonality in a systems view that makes no assumptions about modality, has no preferences, and (I hope) minimizes misconceptions about what stuff is.

I’ve encouraged the organization to consider two main categories, traditional and non-traditional (edging towards dropping the e and DL.) Defining solutions first by where they stand in the organization might just help people understand the impact of isolated intervention.

Each of these main categories is subdivided into more specifically defined solution modalities that mean something to the organizational management. For traditional these are typically stuff like non-resident training (correspondance / snail mail self study and proctored exams), resident training (F2F usually on campus), structured OJT, etc.. The non-traditional category would hopefully be temporary as we define, implement, evaluate, and shape stuff like PSS, online self-study, sync facilitated distance classroom, async facilitated distance classroom and figure out the best ways these work for our organization (initial cost, recurring cost, efficacy, sustainability.)

I’d like to think of a third main category (naturally occurring, perhaps). One that doesn’t imply we have any prescriptive control. This would be the ‘stuff that just happens’ to improve performance. I’d only like to define the things in this channel so we can watch, learn, and hope to connect or support any other prescriptive level solutions with more naturally occurring modes of learning. This is where most learning happens in most orgs, it’s particularly true in ours.

By: Archana Narayan

Archana Narayan — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:35:52 +0000

Thanks for this post. I think the same can be extended to definition of role of ‘instructional designers’, game-based learning, simulations, mobile learning, and several more popular terms used in the learning community. These concepts are so generic that each individual would have a different definition for them.

Why this discrepancy? Are we not clear in our heads or are there several ways of understanding one concept and is it mostly defined by the way we use them?

By: Elearning solutions

Elearning solutions — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:59:26 +0000

It turns out that I have wrong in my belief that elearning tools are no good as a learning management system, as I have been thinking since I heard of the concept. I was thinking that all these e-learning tools taught the learners were how not to interact with others and simply confine themselves to their learning tasks, since the electronic mode in which e-learning solutions come work were seemingly designed to be learned by individuals in the privacy of their own homes or work stations, since this learning management system is particularly geared to provide individuals with a learning tool that can be adjusted to their preferences and pace.