tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post1759512538819359259..comments2024-03-28T15:53:35.595-07:00Comments on eLearning Technology: Instruction eLearning 2.0 and QualityTony Karrerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-90709227672559112402008-07-03T16:23:00.000-07:002008-07-03T16:23:00.000-07:00There's a big difference between what happens at a...There's a big difference between what happens at a university and what happens in workplace performance support.<BR/><BR/>Quality remains important for a university - it's just that how we define quality needs a major change if we are to make effective use of Web 2.0 technology as well as meet the needs of students and other stakeholders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-15542789224776682262008-06-26T07:54:00.000-07:002008-06-26T07:54:00.000-07:00I think what we see with your commenter is the end...I think what we see with your commenter is the endgame in the battle between traditional training and the new world of knowledge building. Standing here with feet on both sides of the field of battle I can commiserate with the poster who frets over the quality of the information being built by both the experts and the learners together. Many of today's experts are not savvy with the web 2.0 world. And many in the corporate world correlate quality with slick appearances. Web 2.0 is not meant to be slick, but to facilitate communcation.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand I have seen multiple instances where companies drink the rapid design kool-aid, buy a copy of Adobe Presenter, and convert mind numbing PowerPoint presentations into a "courseware" and role it out as elearning. The learning they desire is lost within the detritus of the line upon line of text on the slide. And no one - not digital "natives" or digital "immigrants" - have the patience to sit through this stuff.<BR/><BR/>That said, I think it is incumbent upon us to find the happy medium between these two sides because there is something to be said about having the expert present a topical overview to give the learner a frame of reference in which to further explore and learn the topic information. But there must be performance support tools that are NOT buried inside an LMS that the learner can access at any time and that includes the experts themselves.dmcoxehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08167852666121697180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-28445885257465168232008-06-26T05:14:00.000-07:002008-06-26T05:14:00.000-07:00Brynna - well said. I believe the assumption bein...Brynna - well said. I believe the assumption being made is that they are somehow not capable of maintaining quality on their own?<BR/><BR/>In fairness, often the objection is closely associated with policies, procedures, etc. that have compliance, regulatory, liability aspects to them. In these cases, you do need moderation of the content. Of course, to Brynna's point - that just means put in moderation capabilities for the community.Tony Karrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-22875457412083124752008-06-26T03:41:00.000-07:002008-06-26T03:41:00.000-07:00I hear this concern about quality and control over...I hear this concern about quality and control over and over again from learning professionals regarding the Web 2.0 world. The key is to provide the community with the tools they need to control the quality themselves -- help them identify the good stuff and design your system to learn from the community so that it promotes and highlights the "good stuff".Brynnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701988851821494184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-62929532500892985222008-06-25T14:23:00.000-07:002008-06-25T14:23:00.000-07:00Bob - good point that "quality" depends heavily on...Bob - good point that "quality" depends heavily on how you define it. Your brethren may define it as only what is provided by them. You define it based on what the customer wants. Interesting difference.<BR/><BR/>Anon - really fantastic point - it's only going to be useful to the limit of what people do with it. That's very true in classroom discussion as well.Tony Karrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-14751912290268175772008-06-25T13:07:00.000-07:002008-06-25T13:07:00.000-07:00Great feedback Tony and the reason I read your blo...Great feedback Tony and the reason I read your blog on a regular basis.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps much of my quality/standards fears relating to elearning 2.0 could be seen as a parallel to what happened when learning moved out of the classroom and onto the web. It's obvious these technologies are being adopted and utilized at a rapid pace, and all the more reason to take a critical look at them.<BR/><BR/>"Someone could add total garbage. But what's their incentive to do that." I think this comment speaks volumes about the entire collaborative learning concept...in the end, it will only be as strong as its community.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-12869338238980013512008-06-25T12:50:00.000-07:002008-06-25T12:50:00.000-07:00Quality comments..I deploy Web 2.0 technologies wi...Quality comments..<BR/><BR/>I deploy Web 2.0 technologies with ferocity at my University. I try anything and everything and in true Web 2.0 style - if it works I use it more -if it doesn't I junk it. <BR/><BR/>My main goal is to provide "quality" (i.e what the customer wants) to the digital natives and these are a demanding mutation of humankind. At a course committee a first year (freshman) student was asked about all the Web 2.0 instruments I'd thrown at her cohort over the previous month. She looked quizzical and then responded <BR/><BR/>"but isn't this normal in a University". <BR/><BR/>You could visibly see the blood drain from the faces of my whiteboard bound colleagues :)DrBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03090866543039522737noreply@blogger.com