When I first thought of distance learning, I initially thought
about students learning either live or on demand from someone else far away, or
of students reading giant binders of print materials from correspondence
schools, answering a few questions, and sending them off to be corrected.
Over the past weeks my eyes have been definitely opened.
Over the course of my research, various words have come
flying at me: distance education,
asynchronous/synchronous delivery, blended learning, flipped classrooms, eLearning,
mobile learning, motivation, numerous theories… As a high school teacher, former distance
education teacher, and adult learner, I only thought of technology in education
in an academic, or “school-university” based fashion and put no thought into
really what happened behind the scenes.
It was only after reading “A review of what instructional
designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked” by R.F. Kenny, Z.
Zhang, R.A. Schwier, and K. Campbell and “The critical, relational practice of
instructional design in higher education An emerging model of change agency” by
R.A. Schwier, K. Campbell, and R. Kenny that I really started to think about
what goes on behind the scenes in making these programs. The authors list the
skills that instructional designers employ (traditionally and
non-traditionally) and they raised some serious questions for me. The first one that popped into my mind as a
budding “educational technologist” was “what would happen if I was hired for a
job as a designer in the corporate world?”
This is an area that is both scary and fascinating for me.
I went on a quest to find research in the area of technology
and how it relates to learning in the corporate world. I came across an interesting article from
Australia entitled “eLearning in the workplace versus eLearning in higher
education” by Farhad Daneshgar and Christine Van Toorn. They see eLearning as an adaptable,
work-at-your-own pace method of learning that is especially suitable for use in
today’s changing economy. I never thought about how educational technology
could be related to economy before.
What I found interesting about their analyses of distance
learning in the workplace is that their findings are so similar to what we have
studied in class: emphasizing individual differences, motivation, and social
interaction. Also interesting was their
analysis that since people in the workplace are generally more mature, they are
able to apply a deeper meaning to what they have learned, much like graduate
students (who, as they point out, are most often also working while they study).
Also interesting is how they point out the importance of
designing programs suitable to those who are learning from them moving into the
instructional design realm.
Instructional design is important in catering to the needs of the
learners and they authors give examples of how programs are oriented to what
craftspeople, younger professionals, and senior professionals need.
In my last post, I discussed motivation. When Daneshgar and Van Toorn discussed what
motivates those learning in an eLearning format in the workplace I took
notice. They point out that in the
corporate world, responsibility and advancement are key motivators for learning
in an eLearning environment. Even though
motivation can be intrinsic, is that really different to why undergraduate or
even graduate students are learning in an eLearning environment?
Just like in an educational institution, whether it be a
university or a high school, Daneshgar and Van Toorn also stress the importance
of leadership being crucial for the success of an eLearning program from
top-level management. This caused me again to reflect on the role of the
instructional designer, and how important open dialogue and collaboration must
be in order for a program to be a success.
Relating to our class discussions about virtual learning
communities, this article also mentions the words “informal” and “formal”
relating to workplace learning activities as being informal and problem-solving
based where as educational learning is de-contextualized and formal. Is this really the case? With constructivism moving more and more to
the forefront in the planning of educational programming, this is something I
plan to watch closely. I don’t have all
of the tools to agree or to disagree with this statement now, but, in my limited experience, I see this as
changing. As a result, I would argue
that this is a difference between workplace and school/university based
eLearning programs.
It appears that the issues in designing an eLearning course
for the corporate world are similar as for those in the world of education. The best thing for an instructional designer
to do is to dive in and get to it but, as Kenny, Z. Zhang, Schwier, and Campbell
point out instructional designers feel accountable and often play roles that
aren’t exactly “traditional roles”. This
is what makes the field exciting to me. The Daneshgar & Van Toorn article
really helped me make connections to issues and topics we’ve been studying in
ETAD 802 to those that occur in the corporate world. Working in the corporate world is always a
possibility and as an educational technology professional, I should be ready.
Please see:
Daneshgar, F. & Van Toorn, C. eLearning in the workplace versus eLearning
in higher
Kenny, R.F., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R.A., & Campbell,
K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and
questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), 9-26.
Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/147/140
Schwier, R.A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. (2007). Instructional designers'
perception of their interpersonal, professional, institutional and societal
agency: Tales of change and community. In M.J. Keppell (Ed.),
Instructional design: Case studies in communities of practice (pp. 1-18).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Oh, you'll be ready for them, but will they be ready for you? :-) (MadMen).
ReplyDeleteCorporate settings are definitely different, but the issues around learning are remarkably similar, as you've learned. I think the reason is simple. We're talking about the same people, really. Whether in schools, on the playground, in Casinos, or in the head offices of Proctor & Gamble, people are doing the learning. And those people will often learn in similar and predictable ways.
But there are some important differences. Take a look at the literature on "knowledge management" for instance. Big business understands the notion of human capital, but they worry a lot about how to manage it. For example, you might learn a whole lot while you're working for a financial firm, and most of it is held in your head. When you leave one firm and move to another, you take that knowledge with you. And if it is unique knowledge, or something you haven't shared with other employees (which is often the case in a competitive environment), that knowledge is lost to one company and added to another. And the other company might be a competitor.
That's one of the reasons business has gotten interested in communities of practice -- it's a way to spread the tacit knowledge held by employees around, so the company can hold onto it.
So build your intellectual capital and go for it! Any company would be lucky to have you, and there are a lot of opportunities in that sector for instructional designers.
The corporate world is one that has always been a mystery to me and one that I would love to dive straight into. The learning curve would be fast and furious, yet fascinating at the same time!
ReplyDelete