Reference the ‘profession’, ‘elearning’, and ‘elearning professional’

Some thoughts....  I work for the MoD and the most glaringly obvious point to come out of my recent dealings with a world leader (apparently) in training was that they didn't understand our business and were always going to struggle to deliver it more effectively and efficiently than we did, despite the promise of e'learning huge swathes of our courses. The complexity of translating our requirement into their systems and therefore producing content was immense. What it has highlighted in my mind is that when asking questions of whether elearning professionals need to have educational  qualifications I would suggest no, but they do need a background in it. A few of my current cadre of instructional staff have  a Cert Ed but the remainder have a three week train the trainer course behind them.  I am now attempting to justify the upskilling of these instructors in order deliver in a modernised context.  The key point here is that they have Subject Matter Experts in their subject, they have taught / instructed in some way shape or form and now we are going to convert them into 'learning facilitators', but the skills they require are readily lifted from the educational world.  I have previously referred to reflection as a dirty word in the MoD but I value my instructors being able to do it.  Truth is the greatest challenge for us is to get the instructor to give up the all knowing position they currently hold and become more facilitative in their approach.  Instructional Designers need to understand the art of the possible, the content specialists deliver the media and the instructor deploys it as appropriate.  The Mentor role remains unchanged here except for the fact that some of the communications methods are text based rather than face to face.  Lastly, on the Japanese model, the system producer is where I see myself sitting. Putting it (the system) in, and making it grow and develop from a management perspective.

Jane Hart - Learning and Performance Technologies.

I'd become aware of Jane's Top 100 tools a few years ago after inviting her to speak at a Modern Learning Symposium at HMS Sultan a few years ago.  The  list of tools are extensive and provide not only learning tools but also performance enhancing tools which while not always useful to my direct role as a training manager within the Royal Navy, it has provided  a backdrop on which I can appreciate the widening possibilities when approaching a specific training intervention or problem. From the perspective of developing training in the Royal Navy the tools offered are often limited.  The vulnerability our systems to cyber attack means our draconian approach to e-security means that many are not usable.  The concept of collaboration or sharing is not natural to the Armed Forces in general. Information systems are slow, outdated and generally not well connected to the web and where they are the sites which can be visited are limited.  When Flash files or YouTube footage is outside the capability of the IT, the possibilities for Modernizing Learning become stunted. Regardless, the utility of this site to E-learning practitioners in general is positive. Thank you Jane.

Moon, 2005 - Reflection, ICW and Contextualized Military Training

Learning through Reflection.  Moon, J. 2005. 

Moon, 2005 states that reflection is 'not an 'add-on-extra' to academic learning , but an essential component of good quality learning' and that there is a qualitative difference between reflective learning which has a 'surface approach' where learners simply try to retain new information as opposed to reflection where deep connections are made and the information is linked to and modifies previously understood material.  It is this difference of deep v's surface links that I wish to explore. The Royal Navy and MoD in general holds the belief that contextualized military training is inherently necessary to deliver competent Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen.  There is also widespread belief that Interactive CourseWare (ICW) and E-learning materials will not, or cannot develop the mentally agile serviceman or woman required on the front line of Afghanistan.  However, reading and extrapolating  Moon, 2005, I'm tempted to suggest otherwise.

Knowledge delivered via ICW, which is then utilized in a practical 'hands on' scenario requires the knowledge to be reflected upon in order to move it and contextualize it for oneself in another domain.  Where as 'hands on' knowledge acquisition into 'hands on' application does not require repackaging or re-conceptualization and therefore deeper reflection. The concept of tool control, delivered against the backdrop of a Tornado aircraft associates Tool control in that Domain (the Tornado).  Tool Control and Tornados 'just do or are'.  But what the RAF actually means or requires is for the Airmen to realise that Tool Control is pertinent to any Aircraft type.  Thus by delivering knowledge via ICW and then moving to any A/C type the Student is required to re-conceptualize the knowledge gained, reflecting upon it and creating deeper understanding and connections with existing knowledge.  When the Aircraft type changes, the principles applied by the trainee regarding Tool Control doesn't.

ICW knowledge based training 1.  Contextualized Military Training 0  

E Learning in Africa.

E learning in Africa. Different challenges, different drivers, same enthusiasm.