In a virtually rambling and incoherent blog post, BFChirpy seems to write about metrics, knowledge and such stuff. Take a quick look. A great example of self-indulgent writing and thinking, AND the common extreme self-centeredness of almost all the most active social media pundits and fringe members.
I posted a response on the blog, but you never know what sticks so here’s mine: Continue reading
So, tell me. If I happen to go to the water cooler down the hall, and bump into George, who tells me about the new software I could use, is that informal learning? Sounds like it.
We don’t know what position Social Learning plays on this team. And you know what? I don’t give a damn, and neither do the customers and clients of trainers and educators.
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.
…the people who oversell the value of social networking and social learning through exaggerations, deliberate or ignorant interpretation of research (which is usually poorly done anyway), and general religious zeal.
In short, many of the “gurus” in these fields, who are a) converts and true believers while b) making lucrative incomes, or hoping to make lucrative incomes by becoming the keeps of the wisdom (a tactic used in the old days of mainframes, in case you are wondering.
We know from psychological research that human beings tend to discount information, data, or viewpoints that conflict with their pre-existing positions on any issue. We all do that to some degree. What is jarring is seeing learning professionals, trainers and teachers deliberately avoiding interacting with those who have views different from their’s.
I’ve seen this among the leading proponents of social networking as it is used to promote learning, i.e., social learning people. For example, Elliott Mazie, an elearning guru refused public discussion on an article he posted that clearly mis-stated some research numbers. Others have done similar things on Twitter. In fact, when challenged on the basic tenets of social learning dogma, the majority shut down. Avoid & deny.
I’m not sure I understand what falls under the term “social learning” platforms since I’ve seen almost every thing imaginable, including YouTube, described as a social learning tool. But what I’m looking for is your views.
I’ve seen so many vague claims for the effectiveness of social learning, but I’m not really seeing clear explanations of how social learning tools can help learning occur within companies and organizations in a way that will show a return on investment.
In Part I of this series we looked at the first part of Tony Bingham’s post on “Learning Socially” and pointed out that so far in the article, nothing the President of ASTD mentioned is relevant or telling regarding the need or movement towards “social learning. Let’s look further at Bingham’s article to see if there is any substance or valid data in it. We’ll continue with an attempt to deal with what has to be one of the silliest fad terms to hit the training world — informal learning.
Bingham says: Continue reading
One thing that happens as you age, and provided you’ve been paying attention, is that patterns seem to emerge. You hear some people talking, and you can quickly determine what is going on, hostile, friendly, business, personal, whatever, from the patterns exhibited. Many things start to look familiar.
And you get the feeling you’ve seen most things before. Because you have.
For many it will come as no surprise that the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) continues to come up with some downright stupid things. It’s a long standing issue within the training profession, and there are those that hate ASTD and question its function and actions, and those that appreciate ASTD. Mostly I’m neither. I used to be a member, but I’m not now, but for no particular reason.
Still I was surprised at the August, 2009 article posted by Bingham, current President of ASTD, about social learning. The surprise wasn’t so much with the content. After all, ASTD has jumped pretty heavily into the e-learning/informal learning/social learning marketplace, with several of its $695 a piece downloadable guides. What did surprise me was the intellectual weaknesses, and lack of substance in the Bingham article. We’d expect more from a leader of the leading training organization in the world. We’d expect at least some glimmer of intelligence and a little less rah rah cheerleading.
You’d expect more. These are educated, intelligent people who, in general, have achieve some level of success in their careers. No failures here. Yet, you’d expect more of an awareness of what they are doing and how they are treating people who don’t agree with their positions. You’d expect more critical thinking. You’d expect more of a desire to debate and discuss with peple who disagree, if only to learn. After all, these ARE learning professionals.
These are the people who are promoting social media and social learning as solutions to a wide variety of problems, although often they don’t specifically state what business problems would be amenable to social media. It’s understandable that there will be zealots. There were television zealots who told us that TV would revolutionize how people learn, and computer based instruction zealots who told us the same for computers and instruction. Continue reading