Like many powerful tools, learning technology can help or hurt – it depends on how it is used. Getting others to use these technologies appropriately can be a challenge. Those of you around when eLearning was young were able to observed mismatches in learning technology to solution. In that case, eLearning often mismatched the needs and job context of the learner especially when the requirement included some form of behavior or skill acquisition that needed to be applied on the job. This problem is equally if not more prevalent today with new social media and mobile learning technologies available. Many are building wikis, writing blogs, and syndicating podcasts while grouping them under the Learning 2.0 umbrella, but does their content really support learning or a form of communication by providing access to information? If we are going to use or evangelize any learning technology, we need to get back to the basics – instructional systems design. If other learning professionals lack this basic competency, we need to help them.
Ideally, learning professionals have some training and background in instructional systems design (ISD), but we do not always see that in the real world. Even instructional design degree and certification programs tend to focus on the academic versus practice and lack preparedness for applicability when the graduate gets a job. Anecdotally, how many folks do you know with degrees in an area of expertise but lack the real-world experience required to apply it effectively? The old theory versus reality problem… At the same time, there is a basis for the application of ISD, and that’s the trick, applying ISD at practical and appropriate levels.
As learning technologists, practical ISD at a simplistic level tells us we need to help stakeholders and other learning professionals focus on alignment with business goals, business tools, and the work environment. Then we need to identify the needs of the learner by role and what must be accomplished on the job in the ideal world. We need to determine if a training or learning solution is required (it’s not when the problem is systemic or motivational), create a profile of the learner to include what they do in the real world, and map all that to the type of content that will be required (auditory, visual, kinesthetic, blended). Factor in budget, obstacles, and time to proficiency requirements and we can prescribe a set of learning technologies that meet those needs. As learning technologists, we need to push this approach.
If a learning technologist is not available, job-aides like tool matrices or decision work-flows can help stakeholders and development teams make decisions where learning technology is not a core competency, but later on, experts in the required technology need to be involved - especially in the analysis, design, and development phases. Learning technologists or experts will need to hold hands when their stakeholders are too far from their comfort zones.
If starting fresh or embarking on bleeding edge technologies, do some research to benchmark what’s been done successfully by others. When you have identified which technology will meet your needs, incubate and pilot. Start with small groups and the low hanging fruit during the initial test phases and then focus on the larger wins with larger groups as you proceed. Over communicate your wins but document your mistakes and don't forget the lessons learned - they drive efficiency and cost savings later on.
Lastly, ensure you communicate the purpose and value of the learning technologies up and down the food chain as this will drive adoption with your stakeholders and learners, along with prescriptive usage the learning professionals at your organization will need to drive.
