Show of hands.  How many of you believe that a blended learning solution is better than focusing on a single approach and delivery method?  Most of you probably raised your hands.  Second question and be brutally honest.  Do you actually use a blended learning approach?  I’m betting there are far fewer hands up now.  For those who still have their hands up (which probably is feeling silly right about now), one last question.  Do you incorporate informal learning (aka social learning or Learning 2.0) into your blended solution?  I got a feeling there are hardly any hands left in the air.

Most of us are still focused on formal learning.  In fact, an awful lot of you probably are still trying to get to web-based courses accepted as an alternative to traditional classroom training.  Blending formal learning modalities such as live instructor-led and web-based courses offers plenty of challenges as it is.  Why in the world would we want to add informal learning to the mix?

Quite simply, if you don’t plan on and incorporate informal learning into your blended solution then you are not providing the most effective learning for today’s workforce.  People increasingly turn to informal learning options because they are able to get the information they need just when they need it.  There is a direct benefit to need correlation.  And as we all know, WIIFM (what’s in it for me) is what drives adult training.

Alright then, let’s skip all the formal learning nonsense and just do informal!  Not so fast!  While informal learning fulfills an immediate need that the learner has, it doesn’t provide the structure to help the learner discover what they should know.  Formal learning provides the foundation where informal learning can thrive and help sustain continuous learning.

To answer my own question in the title… yes, formal and informal blend quite well.  Just how much of each and what varieties to include depends on the learning objectives and target audience.

So go ahead and mix it up.  Your learners will thank you!

You get what you pay for!

What does this phrase mean?  The implication is that cost equals quality.  If a thing or a service is inexpensive then the quality is less than a comparable item of higher cost.  And there is certainly truth to this saying for many things.  For example, a $100 desk is likely made of particle board with paper “woodgrain” glued on it where a $1000 desk may be made of solid cherry or oak.  The finish and fit of the components in the cheaper desk are not as polished and precise.  Clearly, the higher cost item in this case is also higher quality.

Equating cost to quality in manufactured items is valid the majority of the time.  Exceptions tend to be when brand recognition or celebrity association inflate the cost beyond the actual difference in quality which, let’s face it, happens way more than it should in our “follow the cultural zeitgeist” world.

Another valid use of “you get what you pay for” is service.  You know what I mean.  Go hire someone to paint your house at a rate substantially lower than the industry norm and you will very likely get an inferior result.  The painter is probably inexperienced, inept, or both and will likely cut corners in order to make the job profitable.  Services are an easy win for “you get what you for” since time = money and it normally takes longer to do a good job than a poor one.

So we can all agree on the rationale and validity of this phrase.  But does it hold up for software and online services?  No! Let me say that again with more emphasis… NO!! There are entirely too many instances where free or low-cost tools and services perform as well or better than their more expensive counterparts.  Don’t believe me?  Let’s look at a few examples.

Wikipedia – I grew up in a time where it seemed every family I knew had a full set of Encyclopedia Britannica on a bookshelf in their home.  As an adult, I regularly invested in Microsoft Encarta as a digital encyclopedia.  Then along comes wikipedia and turns the encyclopedia world upside-down.  Is it perfect?  Absolutely not!  There are inaccurate entries, fluff, and downright wrong opinions stated as if they were fact.  But the beauty and wonder of wikipedia is that the entire world can edit the entries.  This open system leads to a level of self-correction that is remarkable all by itself.  And this wealth of information is free!

Google, Bing, Ask, Wolfram Alpha, and other search engines – Need to know what happened on April 21st, 2010?  For one thing, it is the 50th anniversary of Brasilia replacing Rio de Janeiro as the capital of Brazil.  How do I know?  I just typed the date into Wolfram Alpha and it gave me that little tidbit along with several other data points specific to this date.  Search engines, more than anything else, have changed our society to one of “just in time” knowledge.  In another post, I will talk more on this subject but for now just think on what search engines truly mean.  With the sheer amount of knowledge now available online, a good search engine and reasonable querying can help you answer nearly any factual question.  We literally have the accumulated knowledge of the world at our immediate disposal and guess what, it’s free!

MyUdutu – If you have ever created an e-learning course, you will know that most of the really good authoring tools are fairly expensive.  Cheaper alternatives tend to be “lite” or otherwise crippled in features compared to their more costly brethren.  Not so with MyUdutu, the online course authoring system from Udutu.  This full-featured online tool matches and often beats the competition and the tool itself is provided absolutely free!

Moodle, ILIAS, Sakai, .LRN, and other open source LMS options – Even more expensive than the authoring tools are learning management systems (LMS).  Licensing, hosting, customization are all costly and while a free LMS doesn’t negate all costs (still need to host and administer), it does greatly reduce the total TCO particularly for small to medium organizations when compared to enterprise LMS offerings from Saba, SumTotal, Plateau, GeoLearning and other major LMS vendors.  Barry Sampson has a great post on open source LMS alternatives.

OpenOffice.org, Audacity, GIMP, Inkscape, and other open source tools – Speaking of open source, there are a ton of incredible feature-rich free applications out there that offer quality alternatives to their expensive counterparts.  Is GIMP better than Photoshop… or OpenOffice.org better than Microsoft Office… or Inkscape better than Illustrator?  I’m not saying that is or isn’t the case for any of these apps.  But I will say that each of these is absolutely a viable (and FREE!) alternative to the paid option.  And there are so many examples of people creating and using these tools with great success that it is clear the “you get what you pay for” doesn’t apply to open source!

iTunes and the iPhone/iPad App store – Love or hate Apple, you have to admire the way this company turned selling online on its ear.  The music industry hated the very idea of digital copies of music until Apple showed that selling songs for 99 cents each could be big money.  Going down to the store and paying $49.95 for a game suddenly became expensive when you could download a great game on your iPhone for a dollar or two… or even free!  There are some amazing apps for smartphones, most of which are free or very low-cost.  The idea that an easily accessible online store with stored credit card info could provide immediate global distribution for an application at a fixed cost per unit was genius, and proves yet again that you can get more than you pay for.

Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, WordPress, and other social media – I’m able to write this very blog because of WordPress, high quality free software for blogging.  Social media has transformed the online world from disconnected groups and individuals to a worldwide neighborhood of blogs, wikis, meetups, fan pages, home video, and more.  Anyone can be an author, poet, musician, artist, designer, or pundit.  This can be frightening, awkward, silly, and bizarre… but it can also be exhilarating, comforting, uplifting, funny, sincere, and inspirational.  And while there are attempts to monetize social media, it is by and large (and like to remain)… free!

There you go… my rant on quality versus cost.  When it comes to getting what you pay for, technology, open source, and the Internet have completely changed the game.

What about you?  Do you have an example you’d like to share or an opinion on quality vs cost?  I would love to hear it!

Finding and retrieving media assets is scarily easy in our connected world.  Search on the term “dogs” and Google will provide you with over 65 million images, millions of videos, and more than 265,000 books.  The sheer amount of content can be daunting.  But then you face the task of knowing if the content is copyrighted or not.  Further blurring this line is the fact that a copyrighted image, video, document, or song could be scanned or otherwise captured and uploaded with no acknowledgement of the original copyright.  That’s where fair use comes into play for those of us in training.

According to Wikipedia, fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.  Sounds simple enough, but the confusion sets in quickly based on factors such as context, significance of the copyrighted material to the course, target audience, and delivery method.  As noted by the Center for Social Media at American University, educators today have no consensus around what constitutes acceptable fair use practices.

The Wikipedia article notes that fair use is commonly misunderstood because of its deliberate ambiguity and lists some of the more common misunderstandings with explanations of why they are wrong (list below from Wikipedia article):

• Any use that seems fair is fair use. In the law, the term “fair use” has a specific meaning that only partly overlaps the plain-English meaning of the words. While judges have much leeway in deciding how to apply fair use guidelines, not every use that is commonly considered “fair” counts as fair use under the law.^{[citation needed]}
• Fair use interpretations, once made, are static forever. Fair use is decided on a case by case basis, on the entirety of circumstances. The same act done by different means or for a different purpose can gain or lose fair use status. Even repeating an identical act at a different point in time can make a difference due to changing social, technological, or other surrounding circumstances.^{[13][citation needed]}
• If it’s not fair use, it’s copyright infringement. Fair use is only one of many limitations, exceptions, and defenses to copyright infringement. For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal in some circumstances to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use.^[28]
• It’s copyrighted, so it can’t be fair use. On the contrary, fair use applies only to copyrighted works, describing conditions under which copyrighted material may be used without permission. If a work is not copyrighted, fair use does not come into play, since public-domain works can legally be used for any purpose.
  • Note: In some countries (including the United States of America), the mere creation of a work establishes copyright over it, and there is no legal requirement to register or declare copyright ownership^[29]
• Acknowledgment of the source makes a use fair. Giving the name of the photographer or author may help, but it is not sufficient on its own. While plagiarism and copyright violation are related matters—-both can, at times, involve failure to properly credit sources—-they are not identical. Plagiarism—using someone’s words, ideas, images, etc. without acknowledgment—is a matter of professional ethics. Copyright is a matter of law, and protects exact expression, not ideas. One can plagiarize even a work that is not protected by copyright, such as trying to pass off a line from Shakespeare as one’s own. On the other hand, citing sources generally prevents accusations of plagiarism, but is not a sufficient defense against copyright violations. For example, reprinting a copyrighted book without permission, while citing the original author, would be copyright infringement but not plagiarism.^{[citation needed]}
• Noncommercial use is invariably fair. Not true, though a judge may take the profit motive or lack thereof into account. In L.A. Times v. Free Republic, the court found that the noncommercial use of L.A. Times content by the Free Republic Web site was in fact not fair use, since it allowed the public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for.^{[citation needed]}
• Strict adherence to fair use protects you from being sued. Fair use is a defense against an infringement suit; it does not restrain anyone from suing. The copyright holder may legitimately disagree that a given use is fair, and they have the right to have the matter decided by a court. Thus, fair use is not a deterrent to SLAPP.^{[citation needed]}
• The lack of a copyright notice means the work is public domain. Not usually true. United States law in effect since March 1, 1989 has made copyright the default for newly created works. For a recent work to be in the public domain the author must specifically opt-out of copyright. For works produced between January 1, 1923 and March 1, 1989, copyright notice is required; however, registration was not required^[30] and between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989 lack of notice is not necessarily determinative, if attempts were made immediately to correct the lack of notice. Any American works that did not have formal registration or notice fell into the Public Domain if registration was not made in a timely fashion. For international works, the situation is even more complex. International authors who failed to provide copyright notice or register with the U.S. copyright office are given additional contemporary remedies that may restore American copyright protection given certain conditions. International authors/corporations who fail to meet these remedies forfeit their copyright. An example of a company who failed to prove copyright was Roland Corporation and their claimed copyright on the sounds contained in their MT-32 synthesizer.
• It’s okay to quote up to 300 words. The 300-word limit is reported to be an unofficial agreement, now long obsolete, among permissions editors in the New York publishing houses: “I’ll let you copy 300 words from our books if you let us copy 300 words from yours.” It runs counter to the substantiality standard. As explained above, the substantiality of the copying is more important than the actual amount. For instance, copying a complete short poem is more substantial than copying a random paragraph of a novel; copying an 8.5×11-inch photo is more substantial than copying a square foot of an 8×10-foot painting. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a news article’s quotation of approximately 300 words from former President Gerald Ford’s 200,000 word memoir was sufficient to constitute an infringement of the exclusive publication right in the work.^[31]
• You can deny fair use by including a disclaimer. Fair use is a right granted to the public on all copyrighted work. Fair use rights take precedence over the author’s interest. Thus the copyright holder cannot use a non-binding disclaimer, or notification, to revoke the right of fair use on works. However, binding agreements such as contracts or license agreements may take precedence over fair use rights.^[32]
• If you’re copying an entire work, it’s not fair use. While copying an entire work may make it harder to justify the amount and substantiality test, it does not make it impossible that a use is fair use. For instance, in the Betamax case, it was ruled that copying a complete television show for time-shifting purposes is fair use.
• If you’re selling for profit, it’s not fair use. While commercial copying for profit work may make it harder to qualify as fair use, it does not make it impossible. For instance, in the 2 Live Crew—Oh, Pretty Woman case, it was ruled that commercial parody can be fair use.

As you can see, interpreting fair use is a real challenge and social media, Youtube, file sharing, flickr, and the like have turned intellectual property and copyright into a complete quagmire.  A really interesting case is mashups.  A mashup is when someone takes different works, be it music, video, or something else, and combines those works to make something new.  Is the new work transformative and therefore acceptable under fair use?  Or is it derivative and likely violating copyright?  If someone creates a mashup song based on two other copyrighted songs but releases their version under Creative Commons, are you violating copyright when you use it?

Don’t be afraid to use media from other sources in training.  That being said, it is best to have a reasonable understanding of copyright, IP, and fair use.  I strongly recommend reading the fair use and copyright information provided by the Center of Social Media.  There’s some good stuff there and it just may help you navigate these treacherous copyright waters!

I am intrigued by how we can apply the ideas in this article for learning.  For example, the expert following their own path to the outcome versus the novice needing a specific set of steps resonates with soft skills programs such as Situational Leadership.  As we build out new processes and guidelines, let us strive to describe the desired outcome of a best practice and, instead or prescribing the path to get there, suggest methods to achieve the goal.  Such an approach upholds and values the spirit of innovation and personal excellence yet provides consistency and ability to scale.

Now before you think ol’ Jeff has gone off the deep end, let me explain.  I emphasize the traditional ADDIE model for a reason.  The ADDIE model typically is depicted as a waterfall method, with each phase complete or mostly complete before moving to the next phase.

As noted on Wikipedia: “In the ADDIE concept, each step has an outcome that feeds into the subsequent step.“

Traditional ADDIE Model

While the progress between phases is sequential, many industry professionals see the overall model as iterative, in the sense that you complete the full process and then use evaluation results in the Analysis phase of the next project or next revision of the existing project.  Some suggest that analysis is ongoing and impacts on each of the other phases.  Others have proposed variants of ADDIE that vary widely in practicality, with some being quite intriguing.  For example, Catherine Lombardozzi has given a lot of thought to changing the ADDIE model in her LearningJournal blog.

I challenge the usefulness of the traditional ADDIE model in today’s training world.  Based on conversations with colleagues and my own experiences, very few learning organizations have the time, resources, and flexibility to take a waterfall approach to developing content.  Most of us in corporate training are faced with SMEs who have other priorities and little time left over, small budgets, tight deadlines, and a constant challenge to prove that the training we provide is timely and relevant to the business needs.  Our process requires that we spend little time upfront on analysis and design so that we can get right into development.

Does this mean we forgo those first two phases?  Absolutely not!  Instead, the entire process is iterative and ongoing.  Analysis continues to happen while we develop.  Same thing with design.  Even implementation can lead back to any of the other three phases.  I can’t speak for everyone, but I believe you should “release early, release often” and continue to refine your product based on the feedback you get from stakeholders and learners.

Here’s an “Olympic rings” model that illustrates what I mean by iterative throughout the process:

Iterative ADDIE Model

However, even my crude model above is based on trying to adapt ADDIE.  Is that the right thing to do or should we throw out ADDIE altogether and start anew?  I know a lot of industry thought leaders and pundits have shared their ideas on this, but I want to hear from you, the professionals creating learning every day.

So I ask, is ADDIE still relevant?  What do you think?

Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning – Emerging Technologies for Learning.

Wanted/Needed: UX Design for Collaboration 2.0

My path through the world of computers has not exactly been typical and I readily admit it.  My earliest interactions with so-called “personal computers” began in the early 80s with such classics as the RadioShack TRS-80, Tandy Color Computer, Colecovision Adam, Apple II, and Commodore 64.  I bought a Commodore Amiga 1000 when it was first introduced, and over the years progressed through the 2000, 3000, and 4000.  With Commodore going bankrupt and Apple in a state of stagnation, I finally succumbed to the Wintel world in the mid-90s in order to stay relevant and have access to the best of breed tools available at the time.

Why bring this up now?  The 80s were interesting in computer technology because there was no absolute domination by a single platform.  Computers were focused more on particular areas of expertise: IBM clones (PCs) were office machines, Macs were great for the publishing world, and Amigas were popular with multimedia enthusiasts.  PCs were DOS machines and Windows was a poor attempt by Microsoft to mimic the GUIs made popular by Apple and Commodore.

So how did Microsoft gain the stranglehold that Windows has enjoyed for nearly 2 decades?  Because the PC world was all about shared standards and specifications for the hardware, unlike Apple and Commodore where the hardware and the OS were tightly integrated and controlled by the same company.  Windows 3.1 was actually somewhat usable and easily installed on even basic DIY computers built by small computer vendors locally.  Software vendors took notice and made sure to create a version of their software for Windows.  Eventually, the majority of vendors stopped making alternate versions and Windows became the only platform for many applications.

Okay, I hope you hung with me through the brief history lesson.  Here’s the relevance.  Due to the circumstances outlined above, learning applications have been primarily Windows-centric.  And while that situation made sense 10 years ago, it is now a real growth barrier for many vendors.  Why do I say that?  First of all, full disclosure.  I work for Red Hat, the open source leader and provider of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.  I see first-hand on a daily basis the interest and momentum that Linux is gaining, especially in the developing world and computing alternatives such as netbooks and smartphones.  In addition to Linux, the Mac has staged a major resurgence in popularity as Apple has smartly increased it’s presence with all things “i” (Ipod, Iphone, Itunes).

Don’t get me wrong.  Windows is still the 800-pound gorilla in desktop operating systems.  But the OS is not the gatekeeper it once was.  Middleware is the new king of the hill.  Google and Salesforce.com proved that.  Software as a service (SaaS) tends to be platform-independent, meaning it doesn’t really care what computer hardware or operating system you use as long as the appropriate middleware component is in place.

Why should you care?  If you’re an applications vendor and you don’t have a strategy for making your application platform-independent or at least creating an alternate platform-independent variant, then you will severely limit your growth potential as the rest of the world cares less and less about what OS runs the hardware.  If you’re a training vendor, then you need to adapt to supporting clients with varying needs and not assume that Windows will always be the common denominator.  And finally, if you’re a learning technologies consumer, you should have choice and freedom from being tied to a particular OS or hardware platform when you plan your training approach.

And for you vendors who say your application can’t be designed to be platform-independent, I call you out.  Complete office suites are offered as SaaS applications.  Great examples of learning technologies that are platform-independent include SmartBuilder from Suddenly Smart, Scene7 from Adobe, and Xyleme LCMS from Xyleme.  Yes, it can be done.  And the smart money for the future is on those vendors who see the opportunity rather than the challenge.

Get smart, go platform-indepedent, and grow your company.  Or stick with your Windows-centric strategy and follow the dodo.

The eLearning Guild : Social Networking: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning by Clark Quinn : Learning Solutions e-Magazine.

We were doing training videos!  How cutting edge!  What a great way to leverage technology! And then suddenly, video was not hip anymore.  While video-based training is arguably the pinnacle of passive learning, it pales in comparison to the interactive capabilities offered using computers.  The focus turned first to developing computer-based training and distributing on CD-ROM, then training moved online. The new hip way to train became known as e-learning.

So much for the trip down memory lane.  Why bring it all up now?  Blame it on Youtube and Lynda.com.  Video as a training medium is back on the rise, primarily online, and it scares me a little.  Way too often, e-learning is a glorified presentation with little or no interaction, earning the less than glorious name of “page-turner” in that all the learner tends to do is go to the next screen of the course.  While video can be visually and aurally interesting, the lack of interaction does nothing to reinforce the learning.

Does this mean that you should not use video?  Absolutely not!  In fact, video has never been more useful in training.  Smart instructional designers are realizing that incorporating the video as short clips with interactive elements provides the best of both worlds.

So video has not killed the e-learning star.  If anything, it will strengthen e-learning.