Study: Vanity on the rise among college students
AND
Survey: Many U.S. high school students bored in class
In the first story, the problem was too much emphasis on self-esteem while the second story blames the problem on lack of interaction from teachers. So, which is it? 
I attended an interesting luncheon seminar on teaching to the various generational cohorts. Even though the presentation was excellent and the material was good, I am still not convinced about the validity of altering teaching styles to suit the alleged preferences of a generation. To me, active learning appeals to almost everyone because it is interactive and inclusive regardless of your age. I just wonder how much of this research is just due to marketing and that we are being convinced that we act this way by the media.
Ray Sims has a great list of ideas for projects about training and education. I especially like his first idea:
“Make collaboration easy. Employ the usual technology suspects such as discussionboards, wiki, web-conferencing solutions, IM, VOIP, etc. Facilitate physical meet-ups through architectural design and orchestrated face-to-face events. Support and encourage communities of practice and other community constructs. Identify and addresss roadblocks via organizational network analysis and other means.”
Along with the usual technology suspects, I think widgets would be perfect for collaboration. For those new to the idea, widgets are just small applications that can do things like tell you the weather, report on the vital statistics of your computer, or promote your favorite Presidential candidate. Widgets are created using XML and Javascript which allows them to communicate with other applications and share data.
What I envision is a collaboration widget toolbox in which a person can choose particular widgets to build their own personalized collaboration system. For example, you could choose a widget that is a directory of experts. Pair that with a widget which gives you the online status of a person listed in the directory and another widget which allows you to make Skype calls when that person comes online. You can easily switch out widgets to choose another directory or messaging tool. This goes beyond RSS feeds and is better than the normal collaboration systems because you can configure the collaboration tool to your preferred way of working and collaborating.
I believe a widget-based collaboration system fulfills the goals of making collaboration easy and removing the organizational roadblocks that Sims writes about.
I’ve written earlier about a new course design that I’ve used this semester in which I combined significant learning, blended learning, project-based learning, and incentive grading into an active learning model. It’s been two months and, from my perspective, I think it is working. Some students still want me to set due-dates which I have on an individual basis but other students are doing a good job in managing their own assignments and getting work in. And even thought I have not implemented a mandatory attendance policy, class attendance is still the same.
The most satisfying sight is watching students hang around after class and busily work on their group projects. There is the usual problem with a few students who don’t communicate with their group but even that number is lower. We had a mini-debate today concerning Facebook and I was quite pleased with the thought and work the students put into the assignment.
The only downside is grading. I spent two days grading assignments but even that was enjoyable. The papers were much better and providing rubric greatly increased the final product. Instead of the usual groans from a slapdash student assignment, I was happy to see students actually apply critical thinking skills in their work.
The New Media Consortium and Educause just released the 2007 version of their annual report on trends in educational technology. These are their predictions based on time-to-adoption:
One year or Less
Two to Three Years
Four to Five Years
Two interesting issues identified by the report were also key topics at the American Political Science Association Conference on Teaching and Learning that I attended a couple of weeks ago. The first is that there is no departmental recognition for academics who use these new forms of education such as active learning. The second major issue is that there is virtually no way to assess the learning that students receive from the new educational technologies. Until these problems are solved, innovative educators will still have problems using these new technologies in their courses.
In the last four days, I’ve demonstrated how Cross’ model of informal learning is just not workable. To recap, informal learning on its own is haphazard, may work at cross-purposes to organizational goals, and is too uncertain to rely own in training a workforce. But, formal learning by itself also has problems in that the training can be easily forgotten, there is no internalization of knowledge, and trainees are not motivated to put the training into practice. Even so, you can create great training by combining informal training and formal training.
The best example of this is Wick, Pollock, Jefferson, and Flanagan’s Six Disciplines of Breakthrough Learning which is a blending of formal and informal learning that is tied into business results. Using the 6-D method, the trainer first starts with the business outcomes of the training and links that to the objectives of the formal training. This goes beyond ROI in that the training is tied into specific business results that are measurable and should improve as a result of the training.
The second step is to design the complete training experience so to establish transfer of learning. There is preparation before the course (which can be formal assessment and informal learning), the actual formal training, and then follow-through which consists of structured informal training such as mentoring, ad-hoc discussions, and other support activities. In fact, the real strengths in D-6 training are discipline 4 and discipline 5. The formal training is supported by activities to aid in the transfer of learning and a supportive environment is created back at the workplace to effect the transfer. You have peer-to-peer learning communities and “blended coaching” where a trainee is assigned a mentor who uses formal and informal learning techniques to reinforce the formal training.
Another effective blending of informal learning and formal learning are the techniques described in CompanyCommand. The title says it is about advancing the Army professional but it is really a great manual on how to build an online training community using peer-to-peer informal learning mixed with structured formal activities. Just another great set of examples that demonstrate the power of mixing informal learning and formal learning.
So, there should not be a conflict between formal learning and informal learning as Cross suggests. Both approaches have their positives and negatives but, when properly blended together, you have an amazingly powerful educational and training system.
Here is the section that stood out the most and really made me question Cross’ claims.
“People learn informally most of what they need to do their jobs. Although every situation is different, a common assertion is that 80 percent of learning in organizations is informal. The number is backed up [lists several organizations] (p. 17).”
Sounds good and Cross backs up this up with several quotes found in Appendix B. But the problem is that without a clear delineation between formal training and informal training, how can Cross actually establish the 80% figure (he admits this in Appendix B)? The studies themselves range from 70% to 90% and it seems that what one study considers formal training could be considered informal training in another context (pp. 243). In fact, you have a quote from the eLearning Guild that claims elearning as informal learning which contradicts Cross’ assertion that elearning is formal learning.
But there is more. Consider this paragraph which directly follows the 80% paragraph:
“Ironically, 80 percent of corporate spending goes to formal learning and 20 percent to informal. To tell you the the truth, I pulled this figure out of thin air; it feels right [emphasis mine]. I’m aware of how much corporations spend on learning management systems, instructional design, tuition reimbursement, instructor salaries, classrooms, and courseware. I don’t know the tab for meetings, conference attendance, professional dues, pool tables, beer busts, expertise locator software, watercooler meetings, and other informal learning investments (p. 17).”
Ignoring the apparent contradictions in the list (such as why are learning management systems considered formal when expertise locator software isn’t), focus on the “statistic.” If you are going to condemn formal training, knowledge management, blended learning, and the need for ROI, then you better have a real statistic and some hard research to back up your claims.  By refusing to provide a clear definition of informal learning and formal learning, Cross can basically prove whatever he wants just by shifting the list of what constitutes informal learning. In the above list, conferences are examples of informal learning and then they are considered formal learning which must be replaced by “unconferences” (Chapter 14).
Cross also fails to recognize the possible problems of informal learning. I’ve listed a few below:
1) Informal Learning can lead to groupthink. If the same people are always informally learning from each other, they may tend to agree with the group consensus even though individuals may personally disagree. This is because they fear being cut-off from a valuable source of information or being seen as different.
2) Informal Learning can promote elitism and alienation. I worked at a company where most of the folks played golf. Being a nongolfer, I wasn’t able to participate in the informal learning that took place at the golf course and thus I was left out of key decisions and my ideas were shunted aside in favor of a competing idea from a “golf buddy.” The same phenomenon can be seen in the smoking areas, a group that lunches together and the like. Of course this will always occur but if a company relies solely on informal learning, they could be contributing to alienating some of their most valuable employees.
3) Not all informal learning is equal nor valuable. At lunch today, we discussed new methods for active training and how to implement that in our classroom. We also discussed Anna Nicole and if they are ever going to bury James Brown. Ironically, the discussion about active training was inspired by a formal presentation on active training (I have no idea how we started talking about Anna Nicole and James Brown). It’s an unwarranted assumption that every instance of informal learning is inspiring and will make that person a better employee. Sometimes the watercooler discussion may be just simple grousing about the company.
 UP NEXT: Day Five - Follow-Through Learning.
Actually the above title is a rather broad statement because of course informal learning works - the parts of it which are “borrowed” from knowledge management. But Cross’ book is filled with hyperbolic assertions that training is just selling snake oil (p. 32), courses are dead (p. 167), and there is no sense in measuring return on investment for training (p. 165). There is may be some truth to these statements but not ALL formal training is snake oil selling, courses CAN BE useful, and ROI CAN BE a useful measure.
My biggest objection to informal learning is that it is not effective without some structure and as a support to what Cross calls formal learning. You just can’t throw people together and hope that they will informally learn for the best of their company or profession. Nor, is it advisable to wait around for the haphazard process of informal learning to produce a skilled worker. For example, when hiring someone to run your organization’s network, you want someone who has been formally trained and passed a certification program. Not the fellow who has been playing around with a Linux server in his basement. Sure, that fellow may be better than a certified person but how do you actually know until you let him run your network?
Throughout the book, Cross argues that people should be left to their own in determining what to learn, how to learn, and when to learn. As an example of this type of self-determination principle, he writes about a Dutch traffic engineer who hates road signs. According to Cross, this fellow basically leaves it up to the drivers to figure out when to drive safely, watch out for others, and act as responsible drivers.
I live in a downtown area with numerous one-way streets, stop signs, and other road signs. I can just imagine the chaos if all of the street signs were removed and we had to rely on the skills and judgment of our fellow drivers. I remember the numerous accidents when an electrical storm knocked out all of the downtown traffic lights for a day. Does Cross seriously believe that we would be better off if organizations did not direct their training efforts?
Apparently not because in the last chapter, Cross argues for creating “learnscapes” to support informal learning (p. 223). Sounds very nice and seems to exemplify the antithesis of training departments. But, turn the page and Cross starts advocating this:
“[L]earning governance bodies, sometimes called learning councils, to:
Sounds good so far but how will these learning councils operate?
“Best practice is to establish a governance structure to define the rules, processes, metrics, and organizational constructs needed for effective planning, decision making, steering, and control of learning to achieve business goals. Ideally, a senior executive will establish and empower a learning council to:
I put it to you Mr. Cross: How does the above differ in any way from what training departments do now?
UP NEXT: Day Four - Whatever it is, it must be informal learning (unless it’s not)
In advocating informal learning, Cross criticizes three major concepts in training: knowledge management, blended learning, and return on investment. I believe he does so because informal learning borrows heavily from both knowledge management and blended learning. His attack on return on investment seems to be motivated by the fact that you can’t really measure outcomes from informal learning. To promote informal learning as the revolution in learning, Cross needs to obscure the contributions of knowledge management and blended learning.
Knowledge Management
Now I must admit that Cross’ criticism of knowledge management is justified but he is speaking of the old version of knowledge management which was hijacked by IT vendors and distorted from its true purposes. Knowledge managers have learned from their mistakes and the new knowledge management is more about the conversations people have, building communities, and knowledge sharing than it is about the latest database product. In fact, much of what Cross describes as informal learning (community, connecting, and learners) is essentially Communities of Practice which is a key knowledge management concept. Even Cross recognizes the new knowledge management when he refers to “personal knowledge management” as a key part of informal learning (p. 186; also lists some other key new knowledge management techniques).
Blended Learning
In Chapter 11, “Unblended,” Cross denigrates blended learning as a useless term because doesn’t any good teacher use a variety of instructional methods to get their message across? Well, think about blended learning as cooking. There are some folks who can blend together ingredients to make a wonderful meal while others can barely make edible dishes (using Cross’ analogy; p. 172). Actually Cross’ criticism is rather confusing because he describes how he successfully used blending learning to create classes for University of Phoenix (he refers to this process as “blend of blends”; p. 172). Again, I believe that Cross is setting up a blended learning strawman which is just a combination of elearning and some classroom training (Read Bersin’s The Blended Learning Book for more detail on the sixteen different methods of blended learning). And as Cross points out, “Blending will help you learn” (p. 172).
Return on Investment
Again, Cross raises some valid points about return on investment but, as training managers know, corporations still demand payback for investing in training. Cross gives a few examples of how informal learning can be financially beneficial but there is no direct connection that couldn’t be explained by other factors. It is true that current ROI measures are not valid but this doesn’t mean that ROI should be ignored.
UP NEXT: Day Three - How Informal Learning (Doesn’t) Work
P.S. Hello Mr. Cross and thank you for the comments.
For the next five days, I plan to critique Jay Cross’ book on informal learning. Why five days? Because the informal learning model that Cross advocates is just plain bad. Maybe it’s his version of informal learning but I was not all persuaded that this is the future of learning. Informal learning is just another hype-filled, buzzword that pretends to be a radical change from the past but is really bits-and-pieces of other learning methods badly packaged.
DAY ONE - The Garbage Can Model of Learning
Cross’ definition of informal learning is so wide open it can mean almost anything. But what it isn’t is formal learning (which seems to be instructor-led, classroom training with outcomes and standards). A poker game session is informal learning as is a good lunch conversation or a chance meeting in the hallway. Like the Alannis Morisette song, you stub your toe, you (informally) learn.
Cross argues that informal learning is the result of seven different phenomenon: emergence, connecting, meta-learning, learners, envisioning, conversation, and communities. A continuing theme in the book is how Cross introduces a concept, broadly defines and just barely connects it to the concept of informal learning. Supposedly these seven phenomenon lead to informal learning but he just doesn’t connect the dots. Nor does he explain how formal learning impedes these phenomenon. There is no there in informal learning.
Cross has a marketing background which explains the breathless pace at which he writes. He gives some examples of the implementation of informal learning but there is very little concrete evidence that this actually benefited the organizations. Cross seems to disdain actual measures of effectiveness but he is quite happy to quote broad statistics about the failure of traditional training (p. 32) which he claims to be akin to selling snake oil. Without any actual measures to determine the impact of informal learning, I think it’s Cross who is selling the snake oil.
UP NEXT: Day Two - Everything Else is Wrong
Taking a week off. See you again on 2/12/07 with an update from the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference.
