Engaged Learning

Social vs. Not – Pictorally

Mar 10, 2009 Email, Implementation, RSS, Searching, Social Learning SIG, Verbs of Social Learning, Wiki, blogging, collaboration, social media

I don’t know who to credit this to, but I love it. It has been posted so many times that the originator is lost. But, THANK YOU! to whomever it was.  (UPDATE: It is from Nasa.  Thanks, Harold!)

What I love about this is that it is simple & direct. This got me thinking… Why don’t we have more of these? So I decided to create some more. And here they are…

Blog Advantages: Two-way Constant Receive feedback Searchable Archived Interactive Conversational Smaller, faster updates 1: many:many Learning increases

RSS Advantages: Pushed to you Only what has been updated Information > time spent Constant Searchable Archived Personalized content Automatic Learning increases

Social Networking Advantages: Infinitely more resources Easily contact 1000’s of loose connections yet… Very small maintenance time Searchable Learning increases

Why #11: Creates Accountability

Dec 23, 2008 Selling Social Learning, Verbs of Social Learning

photo credit: David Childers

WHY #11:Creates Accountability

Who, in your organization, is in charge of learning?

The answer should be: The learner. In fact, it already is whether we want to admit to it or not.  We may say that the training department is in charge of learning, and that is what most people may think, but they are wrong.  It is the individual.   And that is a huge shift in thinking that will need to happen.

The last, and probably most important  characteristic that encompasses all other characteristics is that of Accountability.  So many training programs use LMSs to track training initiatives.  There may be mandatory and recommended trainings for employees.  From this angle the learning seems to be pushed to the learner – as if the learner must be bribed to learn.  In reality, they are only being bribed to learn using the organizational learning method.

It is a Pull, not a Push method from the side of the learner.  If employees want to learn they need to go find the learning.  Parenthetically, if they use RSS, it is pushed to them, but they initiate it .  They command the learning.

But within social learning, the learner takes command of learning.  It is up to them to learn or to stay ignorant – to stay relevant or become obsolete. They can participate, or close themselves off from the learning.  This, in the end, is something that we cannot take away from each person.  But social learning does allow the learner to take more accountability and direction in their learning and how they give back to those that might learn from them.

Why #10: Finds Information

Dec 22, 2008 Selling Social Learning, Verbs of Social Learning

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

WHY #10: Finds Information

Social Learning FINDS what you are looking for.  Or at least helps you find how to find.

What are the most common ways to find information? Did you notice that I did not say “search for information?”  This is because searching is only one way to find information.

The four major ways to find info are:

• Search
• Hierarchy
• Tag (Machine is using us)
• Personalization

Search is the most use.  Probably because it is most common and we are used to that.  But it may not be the most effective. How many times have we searched on Google and found a whole bunch of results that have the term(s) we wanted but didn’t have anything to do with what we wanted?  All too many times.

Hierarchy is good, but it is limited. For example, I may be able to save a document in a folder on my hard drive.  Oh, but wait.  It could also live in another folder.  And another.  It realistically live in all three.  Which do I put it in?  And when I go to find it next time, will I remember where it lived?  Yet it is another effective way to organize information.  A director of IT mentioned to me that one time he searched his network folders – which were not really THAT huge – and found 15 separate versions of the same document all with different information. Now, which one was the correct version?  Which was most up to date?

Tagging gives subjects to a bit of information rather than trying to pigeon-hole it into on label (which is what a hierarchy does).  For the best video on this, see  Information R/evolution.

The Personalization was pioneered by Amazon.  It can ’see’ what you are looking for and give you suggestions on similar pieces of information. The system does the work for you.  Also, it can help you find others who might know what you are looking for.  Many times what you want is not in a system but in someone’s head.  The system will connect you with that person.

Tags: amazon, personalization, search, tagging

Why #9: Complements Learning

Dec 19, 2008 Selling Social Learning, Verbs of Social Learning

Image by inf via Flickr

WHY #9: Complements Learning

The next characteristic of social learning is that it is not supposed to be threatening to the training department.  Instead it is to complement the learning function.  Indirectly I have seen many people with a learning function be intimidated by social learning because it almost seems to threaten their jobs.  On the contrary, for the most part it will compliment and add value to the learning.  Sure, in some instances it might replace some training.  But over all it is not meant to do that.

When I say that it does not replace I want to be clear: It does not replace traditional learning for the most part, but it instead adds to it.  It DOES, however, replace – and absolutely MUST replace – less effective methods of informal learning.  This is KEY.

ILT has its place.  ELearning courses have their place.  Simulations have their place.  Social Learning adds to the existing toolbox.  But to do this we MUST change our skills sets to accommodate.  We can’t sit back and say, “This is they way we have done it.  There is no way you can learn on a blog (or through Twitter, or through a wiki).”  Because, to be blunt, you would be wrong if you did say that.  We must adapt or be left behind.

This is not a scare tactic, but rather an great opportunity for those that catch on the concept.  It is time to jump on the wave and ride it!

Tags: Twitter, Wiki

Why #8: Roam & Learn

Dec 12, 2008 Selling Social Learning, Verbs of Social Learning

(Continuing a series I have not updated in too long… The “Why’s” of Social Learning.)

WHY #8: Roam & Learn

Another characteristic is that we can choose when to learn – it is not time bound.  There are three aspects to time.  Before now – now / this moment – later.

Email is timeless on two fronts – it satisfies the need of now and later, but not before now. Before email, there isn’t a discussion.  You start at now.

Books are on two fronts as well – before now and now, but not later.  There is not a discussion afterward.  For example, the book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership by John C. Maxwell was just republished.  Why did he republish it? Because he wanted to update it, something that an author cannot do easily.  Once you write it, it is written and done.

An instructor-led training class is usually just a now.  There isn’t a lot of before, nor is there a lot of later except for the notes you took.

Social learning has a history, as we have pointed out, a now and a future all combined into one.  You learn from what others in the past have made for you and you discuss it further to further expand on it.

What I have casually observed is that because the information is available whenever we want it, employees are more willing to learn on their own time, which is a great PRO when you are talking to executives.  They choose to listen to podcasts when they are going home.  They choose to log in at home and learn something really quickly because they have a question now.

I don’t have to sign up for this learning.   There isn’t a schedule or registration.  It just happens.

Tags: Email, roam, social learning, why

Why #7: Choosing When To Learn

Nov 6, 2008 Selling Social Learning, Verbs of Social Learning

Book cover via Amazon

WHY #7: Choosing When To Learn

There are three aspects to time: Past, Present and Future.

Email is timeless on 1.5 fronts – it satisfies the need of the Present.  Future? If you can find the email.  And it does not satisfy the Past. With email you start at now.

Books are on two fronts – Past and Present, but not Future.  There is not a discussion afterward.  For example, the book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership by John C. Maxwell was recently republished.  Why?  Because he wanted to update it, a characteristic of books that cannot be done once it is printed.  Once you write it, it is written and done.

An instructor-led training class is usually just Present.  There isn’t a lot of Past, nor is there a lot of Future except for the notes you took.

Social learning has a history, as we have pointed out, a Past and a Future all combined into one.  You learn from what others in the Past have made for you and you discuss it further to further expand on it.  And it is there for you in the Present.

What I have casually observed is that because the information is available whenever we want it, employees are more willing to learn on their own time, which is a great pro when you are talking to executives.  They choose to listen to podcasts when they are going home.  They choose to log in at home and learn something really quickly because they have a question now.

I don’t have to sign up for this type of learning.   There isn’t a schedule or registration.  It just happens.  And I get to choose when it happens.

Related Posts:

Why #6: Liberating Knowledge

Why #5: Adapting to a New Learning Structure

Why #4: Distributing Ownership (Cont’)

Why #3: Discovering Experts

Why #2: Personalizing Learning

Why #1: Focusing on People (Part 1) (Part 2)

Tags: choose, future, past, present

Why #6: Liberating Knowledge

Oct 30, 2008 Selling Social Learning, Verbs of Social Learning

Image by DavidErickson via Flickr

WHY #5: Liberating Knowledge

There are reasons, but for the most part, why stick perfectly good information in email?  No one else can learn from what you just learned when it is in email.   Here is a simple example.  I know one person who was looking for a corporate template.  He was about to email the marketing department and knew it might take a couple days and a few routed emails before he saw it.  Instead, he did a quick search and found that someone had shared it with everyone.  Problem solved.

What if we could do that with other knowledge?  As a general rule, I use email only when it needs to be 1:1 or is sensitive. Other than that I try to use anything but email.

Next time, instead of asking a question in email, ask a question using a forum, or a blog, for exameple.  When you do, the question doesn’t go to just one person, it goes to potentially thousands of people.  Anyone can answer it.  And the beauty of this is that everyone has a different perspective.  Sure, there may be one basic answer to a question, but we all have our own view.  My view of it may not match yours – it may be just a bit off.  But someone else may share your view and give you the exact answer you are looking for.  Also, if the answer can be debated, you get a wealth of knowledge in the exchange of ideas.

Make it your quest – make it easy to for others to find information and learn – the easier the better.  If the process is difficult others will either 1) not use it or 2) put up with it and grumble the whole time.

Social Learning liberates knowledge.

Related Posts:

Why #5: Adapting to a New Learning Structure

Why #4: Distributing Ownership (Cont’)

Why #3: Discovering Experts

Why #2: Personalizing Learning

Why #1: Focusing on People (Part 1) (Part 2)

Tags: liberate, why

Why #5: Adapting to a New Learning Structure

Oct 27, 2008 Selling Social Learning, Verbs of Social Learning

WHY #5: Adapting to a New Learning Structure

Wow.  We haven’t figured this out yet.  When we work, we learn. As I have looked into this, I have been surprised at how we just don’t get it.  We are constantly learning as we work, but we don’t think of it as learning.  We think of it as working and we separate the two.

Have you seen the show “Hole In The Wall“?  If the contestants don’t fit into the holes cut out in the wall (which is coming at them) they are knocked into a pool of water.  Not surprisingly, these guys made it in the pool.

Within traditional organization learning, you have presenters, instructional designers, researchers, eLearning specialists and more.  And then you have models like ADDIE or the such to help you start at the beginning and end at the end and then loop around.  But (I was about to say ‘new’ but it isn’t new) this structure of learning doesn’t have a beginning or an end.  It is always.  For example, when you get up in the morning, when do you start breathing?  There isn’t that beginning to your day.  It is always happening.

Again, going back to the water cooler example, how would you organize the water cooler talks?  That is absurd.   You wouldn’t.    Not that there isn’t organization, because there is.  You let those who are in the conversation organize it, not try to impose one.

This learning organizational structure is created by the learner. Every person organizes it differently according to their own construct.  Yet so much of information is rigidly organized in a hierarchical form that may or may not make sense to each individual person.

QUESTION: What pros/cons do you see in this type of self-organization?

Related Posts:

Why #4: Distributing Ownership (Cont’)

Why #3: Discovering Experts

Why #2: Personalizing Learning

Why #1: Focusing on People (Part 1) (Part 2)

Tags: ADDIE, organization, water cooler, why

Why #4: Ownership Cont’

Oct 21, 2008 Selling Social Learning, Verbs of Social Learning

From a purist standpoint, my last post could be read as if all information could be owned by everyone.  Well, that isn’t quite true.  For example, HR may have a list of holidays they give the company.  They don’t want anyone going in there changing these days (although I think they may like that!).  Also, management may have information that they don’t want everyone to see, let alone play with.

There is plenty of information that either you don’t want people to change or even see. In either case, almost all Web 2.0 products allow you to have some type of permissions: Read only, Read/Write, No rights, and more.  You can assign those out to particular people or groups of people depending on how your software is set up.

This allows for maximum control at the same time.  Now this may seem like a contradiction, but we can’t be cavalier about the proprietary information our companies have, either.  As a general rule, If the only answer you can come up with is “control” than you better look for something different.  In the case of HR or management, there are legitimate reasons for limitations.  There is nothing wrong with this.  But, if communication and learning can be enhanced by sharing, let it fly!

photo credit: ~~Jen~~

Why #4: Distributing Ownership

Oct 16, 2008 Selling Social Learning, Social Learning SIG, Verbs of Social Learning

Image via Flickr.com:tymesynk

WHY #4: Social Learning Distributes Ownership.

Think of a water cooler discussion you have had lately.  Or maybe an email you sent out where there was a string of responses.  Who owns those conversations?  That is actually a silly question to ask because we all know that no one owns the conversations – they just are and we all might be participants in them.  This is different from training and traditional organizational learning where someone or organization or department owns the learning and its delivery and content.  Here, in the social world, no one owns them.  There are exceptions, but for the most part they are not owned.

It is in our nature to own content – information.  If you create a document or PowerPoint or Excel spreadsheet, you own it.  If someone wants to change it you email it to them, they change it, email it back and you approve the changes.  That is a traditional model of content ownership.  If another comes along and changes it without the owner’s knowledge – well watch out!  I have seen too many people get upset about that.

But with social learning, if I put out information and it is changed by someone, I should only be thankful and not get upset.  I relenquish control and ownership to everyone. S ure, I may be very interested in the information and may be the most active one in the document, but It is not mine.  The more who are willing to contribute, the better.  More views/perspectives and the more we can all learn.

If we combine this principle with the “Focus on People” principle, you can see how we would look at content differently.

Oddly enough, this is a difficult point for many to overcome.  In my research I found that people still have a file mentality.  They created a file and it is theirs.  If someone wants to change it or add to it, they have to ask permission.  It isn’t the same here.

After I implemented my first social learning environment I did some ethnographic research on how it was being used. I wasn’t expecting it, but I found that people would still put information in a wiki and expect that the information was theirs. They didn’t want others changing it nor did they want to change others’ without their permission.  Over time this has disappeared, but it a ‘gotcha’ we all need to be aware of.

Spread the idea that it is GREAT to add to or change information.  This may catch people off guard, but be ethusiastic about this point.

In the end, we all own it.  Again, like BarCamp, no one person owns it.  They may have someone driving it, but they don’t own the conversations or organization.

The UK government did some research and found:

Pupils feel a sense of ownership and engagement when they publish their work online and this can encourage attention to detail and an overall improved quality of work. Some teachers reported using publication of work to encourage peer assessment.

Dawn Foster mentions:

The community “owns” the community, and the employees of an organization or other people hosting the community are an integral part of that community. If you think of yourselves as an equal member of the community, it might be more natural to have conversations about negative criticism and work to resolve them together. Maybe this is just semantics, but I think it can help people think about the community in a way that facilitates collaboration and cooperation.

Why is this important?  Because the more that anyone can add or clarify, the more information you have and the more accurate it becomes.  The ownership isn’t an exclusive ownership, it is an inclusive ownership. Everyone owns the community, thus everyone owns the content.

What does “Distributes Ownership” mean to you?

How have you seen this principle work?

Related articles

• Musing on Community Ownership
• UK Government Research on Web 2.0
• Ten Aspects of Web 2.0 Strategy That Every CTO and CIO Should Know
• Who “Owns” the Community?

Tags: ownership, why