Learning Conversations

My reflections on the Learning Technologies conference have generated a fair bit of discussion.

Like Amit Garg and Charles Gould, I believe that the disconnect, between what we're hoping for as learning professionals and what is actually being sold & bought, is more about the beliefs and attitudes of those whole hold the purse strings. They need powerful, often monetary, arguments to move away from "traditional" learning mechanisms. The traditional methods provide easily obtained data (attendance, page views, assessment results), which are used as measures of effectiveness, whereas real learning that leads to demonstrable change is actually very hard to measure independently of all the other factors within an organisation. That lack of direct evidence thus makes it incredibly hard for the typical organisation to innovate. Thankfully we heard examples at the conference such as BT's Dare2Share initiative and the DoD's approach to the three challenges of fear, trust and control.

However, I also agree with Phil Green when he says: "I think it is possible to be progressive and innovative in L&D without tearing up AND burying the map". There will always be a place for face-to-face workshops and structured distance learning (even instructional) materials. It's just a matter of using the right environment and the right materials for the particular change you're trying to achieve. The problem comes when we try to use one method for every situation. The problem comes when organisations have paid vast sums for one particular type of software or learning resource. There's every incentive then to make full use of it, regardless of whether it's the right thing to use.

Jay Shaw made an interesting comment:

Sometimes I think we made a terrible mistake as an industry by calling these systems learning management systems because they're not really about learning, at least not in the senses you mean above. It's not about learning qua learning. It's about making sure the right people get the information they need to do their jobs, when they need it and in forms that are easy for employees to use in their usual work processes. These systems are about helping companies and governments assure staff and user competence in ways that can be verified and validated.

The trouble is most of these so-called learning management systems are actually pretty terrible at getting people the information they need to do their jobs when they need it. When I (and most people) need some information to do my job, I go to a search engine and, with intelligent search terms (now that's a skill we need to teach!) usually manage to find something. I've not yet come across an LMS that allows me to search inside the content. So I'm then reliant on the navigation structures that the system admin has configured in order to get to the content.

Now, that's fine for new starters, or people embarking on a new course of study, but dreadful for helping people who just need to refresh a bit of knowledge.

Jay and Patrick Dunn have made a number of comments about compliance, which appear to be opposing, but actually they're coming at it from two different angles. Jay uses the example of aircraft pilots who have to comply with the rules by undergoing intensive simulator training which gets tracked and assessed automatically. Whereas Patrick is talking about the compliance training that us normal folk have to endure; usually in the diversity and financial areas.

They just can't be compared. An aircraft simulation is a highly sophisticated piece of software that does its best to mimic real life. I'm glad pilots can make mistakes and learn from them! Normal, corporate compliance training is nothing of the sort. As Patrick quoted: "look - the only reason we're doing this compliance e-learning is to cover ourselves. We're not expecting people to behave differently in any way. If we were, we'd train them properly."

I would suggest we not be distracted by arguing about situations that bear no relation to each other. Where "compliance training" or any other sort of intervention is obviously having an effect then that's fine. It's when we just accept the status quo because it's easier to do so - that's where we need to talk.

I was surprised when Robin Hoyle said that vendors were not allowed to speak at the conference. Especially when you consider we've all really got something to sell, even if it's just ourselves. But actually, it's even about who's allowed to speak, because that's still a one-sided conversation in most of the sessions. It's more about setting up forums for conversation where we can discuss openly:

• the commercial pressures that vendors are under
• the changes that learning professionals (including vendors!) would like to see
• how to stimulate that change by engaging with those who control the money

In my view, a good place to start would be by opening up the Learning & Skills Group Ning community to all interested people including vendors. Some simple ground rules, such as those produced for the Moodle community forums, would help avoid difficult situations arising. Most of people who create the products and services we buy are dedicated learning professionals, just as much as the people using those products. We need to learn from, and engage with each other if we are to realise the improvements we all want to see happen!

Apologies for the impassioned and slightly rambling nature of this post!