One thing I always like to tell people when they are about to purchase eLearning products or services, is buy with an exit strategy. What this means is before you go spend your money or your company's money on a product or service, consider the impact of the product itself or the vendor of the product not being around at some point. It also means buy knowing that you may want to move in a different direction one day.
Some of the biggest mistakes I've seen in the market come from large purchases that do not have an exit strategy. A company pays millions for an LMS, want to switch but the cost of moving content from one LMS to the other is so expensive, that spending millions to renew a license for a product you don't like is actually the path of least resistance.
Now factor in that the money spent designing and developing content, at some point exceeds any money you spend on infrastructure, you would think that decisions around products and tools might be made with a little more caution. Straight up, no bullshit, but 99% of the products and services people purchase are designed with a hook. They are designed to make the exit strategy painful.
One of the greatest assets of using a structured authoring approach based on open source technology means that if I need to move my content and my technology to a new platform...I can. Because form and function aren't hard coded together and that both are built using standard web technologies, means that I can move content to a new delivery and authoring platform without having to reauthor everything. What are you going to do with your content when you switch LMS's? How much money are you going to shell out to move your 'legacy' content?
You might want to rethink your Articulate/Captivate/Lectora/etc strategy.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
sLML
Well...edCetra Training has finally released its open source semantic markup language for learning; sLML. It stands for Structured Learning Markup Language. The point of creating and releasing the language is to start a dialogue about a single platform that is diverse enough, scalable enough and rigid enough to power 'on-demand' learning. The language has shyed away from redefining packaging standards and also processing standards and has focused instead on really finding a generic instructional design model that can help folks structure their learning and provide semantic meaning to the content.
With this type of language in place, it allows for the potential of the semantic web to break through. Processing semantic content can happen on multiple levels and through multiple streams. It can happen in real time, or can be packaged and loaded up somewhere. Content can be reused, repurposed and rebranded without having to save the content elsewhere.
The sLML package can be downloaded from sourceforge and we are looking for contributors to help us push this specification through.
With this type of language in place, it allows for the potential of the semantic web to break through. Processing semantic content can happen on multiple levels and through multiple streams. It can happen in real time, or can be packaged and loaded up somewhere. Content can be reused, repurposed and rebranded without having to save the content elsewhere.
The sLML package can be downloaded from sourceforge and we are looking for contributors to help us push this specification through.
Monday, July 27, 2009
eLearning the Religion - The Unfortunate Parallel
It might be because I'm reading the book 'God Is Not Great', but I essentially can't lose this feeling that eLearning and the folks within the industry operate as a 'religion'. Now there are going to be some of you who think this is a good thing. I couldn't disagree more.
Without getting into a debate over 'religion' itself, let me point out some of the characteristics of a religion that I believe are universally true and then discuss how these characteristics when applied to eLearning prove to be a detriment.
1) All religions require a 'leap of faith'. In other words, religion is beyond reason, and if you tried to logically defend it, you would ultimately have to at some point agree that the 'first thing' (refered to as God) can not ever be logically proven as fact and therefore requires a leap of faith. Religion would argue this is because as humans we could not possibly really 'get it' unless through divine revelation.
2) All religions have 'Guardians' of truth that serve as the messengers who spread the word and work to assure the faithful that their faith is well placed and also rebuke the nay sayers.
3) Religions require 'status quo'. Ideally there is no change...ever...since the basis of a religion is thought to come from God him/herself. If it comes from God...it must be true! Sure, there is evolution and modernization...but really this is simply trying to attract the next generation of believers...since the current generation would never want anything changed.
Now lets look at these characteristics and apply them to eLearning:
1) Leap of Faith - People buy products and services all the time before ever having a logical reason or the right information about the product or service before buying. They acknowledge their ignorance and take somebody's word for it, that whatever they're buying will do the job. This is pervasive in the eLearning industry. There are a significant portion of decision makers that are in their position without any knowledge at all of learning, training, development, eLearning, etc who pay big bucks for products and services. Even the people below the decision makers who inform the decision maker are in no position to understand the ins and outs of what they recommend. The end result - the leap of faith - and a big waste of money.
2) The Guardians of Truth - These are the folks that keep the status quo. They reaffirm the faithful and keep away the nay sayers. If you don't believe these exist, take a look at every conference and look at the vendors, speakers and participants. The vendors have spent lots of money on their product so they absolutely want to slow down change to sell as much product as they can. The speakers in the hopes of attracting the largest amount of people must talk about topics that are familiar to everyone and most of the time, speakers are vendors. And then you have the participants. The participants only know what they've heard at conferences. Their education comes from the literature and the conferences that all conspire to market the same message and that message is the one that the guardians of truth want us to hear. The messages that sell the most products and attract the greatest amount of attendees.
3) Status Quo - There is no doubt that when large groups of people all share the same message, as a person of reason I'm going to tend to drop my guard and believe what I hear. The eLearning industry and the organizations that operate in it must try to maintain the status quo to satisfy its participants. Change is intentionally halted and slowed down. It preys on ignorance and systematically keeps ignorance alive by bombarding participants with half truths, lies and simplified ideas.How else could it sell to the ignorant?
If you still think I'm being harsh, think about eLearning 2.0? How many people know where the '2.0' comes from? How many people know what it refers to? How many people understand the concepts implicit in tying '2.0' to learning? My guess is the answers to the questions are 'not many'. If thats the case, why is everybody talking about it? Where is the research? Where are the nay sayers?
eLearning needs the nay sayers. We need to educate ourselves so that we can make informed decisions, not decisions based on a leap of faith. We need to challenge the orthodoxy. We need to push our institutions to showcase what the 'others' are saying. What organization out there is going to take this challenge?
Without getting into a debate over 'religion' itself, let me point out some of the characteristics of a religion that I believe are universally true and then discuss how these characteristics when applied to eLearning prove to be a detriment.
1) All religions require a 'leap of faith'. In other words, religion is beyond reason, and if you tried to logically defend it, you would ultimately have to at some point agree that the 'first thing' (refered to as God) can not ever be logically proven as fact and therefore requires a leap of faith. Religion would argue this is because as humans we could not possibly really 'get it' unless through divine revelation.
2) All religions have 'Guardians' of truth that serve as the messengers who spread the word and work to assure the faithful that their faith is well placed and also rebuke the nay sayers.
3) Religions require 'status quo'. Ideally there is no change...ever...since the basis of a religion is thought to come from God him/herself. If it comes from God...it must be true! Sure, there is evolution and modernization...but really this is simply trying to attract the next generation of believers...since the current generation would never want anything changed.
Now lets look at these characteristics and apply them to eLearning:
1) Leap of Faith - People buy products and services all the time before ever having a logical reason or the right information about the product or service before buying. They acknowledge their ignorance and take somebody's word for it, that whatever they're buying will do the job. This is pervasive in the eLearning industry. There are a significant portion of decision makers that are in their position without any knowledge at all of learning, training, development, eLearning, etc who pay big bucks for products and services. Even the people below the decision makers who inform the decision maker are in no position to understand the ins and outs of what they recommend. The end result - the leap of faith - and a big waste of money.
2) The Guardians of Truth - These are the folks that keep the status quo. They reaffirm the faithful and keep away the nay sayers. If you don't believe these exist, take a look at every conference and look at the vendors, speakers and participants. The vendors have spent lots of money on their product so they absolutely want to slow down change to sell as much product as they can. The speakers in the hopes of attracting the largest amount of people must talk about topics that are familiar to everyone and most of the time, speakers are vendors. And then you have the participants. The participants only know what they've heard at conferences. Their education comes from the literature and the conferences that all conspire to market the same message and that message is the one that the guardians of truth want us to hear. The messages that sell the most products and attract the greatest amount of attendees.
3) Status Quo - There is no doubt that when large groups of people all share the same message, as a person of reason I'm going to tend to drop my guard and believe what I hear. The eLearning industry and the organizations that operate in it must try to maintain the status quo to satisfy its participants. Change is intentionally halted and slowed down. It preys on ignorance and systematically keeps ignorance alive by bombarding participants with half truths, lies and simplified ideas.How else could it sell to the ignorant?
If you still think I'm being harsh, think about eLearning 2.0? How many people know where the '2.0' comes from? How many people know what it refers to? How many people understand the concepts implicit in tying '2.0' to learning? My guess is the answers to the questions are 'not many'. If thats the case, why is everybody talking about it? Where is the research? Where are the nay sayers?
eLearning needs the nay sayers. We need to educate ourselves so that we can make informed decisions, not decisions based on a leap of faith. We need to challenge the orthodoxy. We need to push our institutions to showcase what the 'others' are saying. What organization out there is going to take this challenge?
Friday, February 6, 2009
Working on a book
I've been chipping away at a book titled "How cloudbooks will change learning forever" and I have to say, its just not going as quickly as I would like. I have so much ground to cover that when I go to write, I may or may not be ready to continue where I left off. Instead, I may start a new train of thought.
Some ideas that I am covering in the book include:
- What is the significance of a "cloudbook" to learning? What does it represent?
- How is the "cloudbook" an extension of instructional design's evolution?
- How will the cloudbook be used for learning?
- How does structured content development tie into cloudbooks?
The more I do the speaker circuit and the more feedback I get, the more encouraged I become that folks are starting to get it. As new toys come out for learning, people are becoming concerned over issues of reuse. Creating intelligent content that all forms of cloud computing devices can read and dispense to individuals is consistent with where Web 2.0 leaves off and where Web 3.0 comes in. Using proper semantic markup techniques, based on instructional value of content to learners will ensure content retains the context on which it is to be taught rather than the delivery mode it is meant to be taught. Allow devices such as "cloudbooks" to make use of that content to make the individual consumer of the content's life easier.
I don't really believe that there will be the perfect semantic language for learning content that will allow all contexts to be reused properly each and every time, but like "meaning" itself, it can evolve and reach agreement within the masses.
Worrying about the tools of eLearning and looking for the ones that will allow the fastest rapid development cycles with the least amount of experience is only going to produce an economic meltdown for your organization in the future as folks struggle with where to find the money to move all your "legacy" content into the next best thing!
Some ideas that I am covering in the book include:
- What is the significance of a "cloudbook" to learning? What does it represent?
- How is the "cloudbook" an extension of instructional design's evolution?
- How will the cloudbook be used for learning?
- How does structured content development tie into cloudbooks?
The more I do the speaker circuit and the more feedback I get, the more encouraged I become that folks are starting to get it. As new toys come out for learning, people are becoming concerned over issues of reuse. Creating intelligent content that all forms of cloud computing devices can read and dispense to individuals is consistent with where Web 2.0 leaves off and where Web 3.0 comes in. Using proper semantic markup techniques, based on instructional value of content to learners will ensure content retains the context on which it is to be taught rather than the delivery mode it is meant to be taught. Allow devices such as "cloudbooks" to make use of that content to make the individual consumer of the content's life easier.
I don't really believe that there will be the perfect semantic language for learning content that will allow all contexts to be reused properly each and every time, but like "meaning" itself, it can evolve and reach agreement within the masses.
Worrying about the tools of eLearning and looking for the ones that will allow the fastest rapid development cycles with the least amount of experience is only going to produce an economic meltdown for your organization in the future as folks struggle with where to find the money to move all your "legacy" content into the next best thing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
