iFive Alliances

Your Revenue Driver

eLearning vs ILT (the debate is killing our industry)

I had a recent conversation with Alan Urech of Stoney River Capital Partners and he referenced web 4.0 technologies. This was a new term to me so I asked for an explanation. He explained it and then sent me these videos.


Learning 1.0 = ILT
Learning 2.0 = SPI
Learning 3.0 = eLearning = web 1.0
Learning 4.0 = EPSS = web 2.0 (Think GPS)
Learning 5.0 = Collaboration = web 3.0 (Think Social)
Learning 6.0 = Immersion = web 4.0 (Think Wii)

Here’s another video to stir your imagination:


I think the training world is still debating ILT vs. eLearning and the rest of the world is moving rapidly to other technologies that make us look irrelevant and out of touch.

What do you think?

Views: 83

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Interesting topic but way cool videos. The 6th sense stuff and Milo is awesome stuff. My sense is this is at a stage of development similar to speech recognition software was some years ago - great promise but substantial number of challenges to be overcome and bugs to be worked out. However I do think that many of these capacities will be common place in the next decade.

Your learning 1.0 thru 6.0 got me thinking about our progression at PAR and I concluded:
1.0 Leadership & Teamwork 2 days in classroom
2.0 "Cracking the Code to Leadership" book
3.0 Leadership & Teamwork Blended ( e-learning module + 1 day classroom
4.0 iPAR MindReader app for iPhone
5.0 ???
6.0 ???

All of this is great for discussion here and among other training professionals. Additionally we need to keep pushing our boundaries and be open to emerging technologies as they are able to facilitate learning and development. However for me Nathan has identified the greatest source of pain in the training industry we he said, "I constantly ask myself if we as a training industry have done all we can to educate leaders? Are we being successful connecting the dots between training results and bottom line results for organizational leaders?"

Until we are significantly better at connecting Learning 1.0 or whatever to bottom line business results we will always be the first to get cut and the last to get restored.
Sixth Sense is a very thought provoking video. I agree the training world is still debating ILT vs. eLearning. My question is what is behind the debate? Perhaps some struggle with moving on to other technologies out of fear of change, or perhaps their ability to connect with new technologies and make meaningful and measurable impacts within their organization. I sure there are many reasons.

I accidentally deleted my original post. :(
My imagination began to run wild as I watched these videos. As my granddaughter would say, "Way, cool!"

The challenge with technology is getting beyond the "g-whiz factor" and into the real application potential. Even if training organizations adopt these technologies, it will be difficult (at least initially) to overcome the fascination with the equipment, and focus the learners' attention on the content. Never mind the likley cost prohibitions on development. Like most technology, the engineers develop cool stuff, then come to the user and say, "Can you use this?" It should be the other way around; we should be telling them what we need this technology to do. Of course, gaming is the profitible app for this stuff, and training is a far smaller market. Back to Pat's point about "bottom line results."

I see reall applications for this in military, law enforcement, and other applicatons where the training is the difference between living or dying. Imagine using "Milo" to train police officers to develop the ability to recognize a real threat versus an imagined one. (Remember the stories in Gladwell's book, "Blink?") The "sixth sense" could have an incredible result in law enforcement, and maybe even in recognizing a terrorist.

The key to ILT and even eLearning is linking the application to the result. Technology is not the answer to everything.
Wow...impressive stuff...but

Patrick hit the nail on the head. In these last two years, my discussions on organization development/learning always end in what Patrick said, we are "the first cut and the last restored." ILT, eLearning, simulation...regardless of learning delivery method, that's our bottom line as well. It's the silver bullet for training/learning. Can we show that what we do increases business performance that directly impacts revenue. I've been working with the Baldrige Criteria (http://www.baldrige.nist.gov/index.html) for several years and I believe this model does a very good job of connecting those dots. For those of you unfamiliar with this model, it's the basis for the Baldrige National Quality Award for Performance Excellence and companies that use this model to structure their business systems/processes typically outperform competitors by 15+%. Dated research (1998) supports this statement. However, to quote Led Zeplin, "the song remains the same."
Being tied to 'old technology' is always the bain of the experienced. The current debate we should be having is how to get a learning experience (or focus the learning experience) and outcomes - using the new technology. The opportunity for outcomes, for businesses, for individual learners, is many times what it used to be. But at the same time, removing the 'interface' means we have to be that much better about creating an 'environment' of situational learning. Before we simply had to tell them what to learn, or give them a single challenge related to the learnable objective. Now, we have to build a whole environment from which they can achieve multiple learning objectives - and to some degree, we must let go of the order in which they learn these things, since the learner has the control once we have created the environment for them. A paper by Prof. Thomas Reeves (UGA) brought this concept together quite succinctly: for the new learners (in this case, focusing on Gen Y), "the information is in the interface" - in other words, we cannot separate what is being done (learning) from how it is being done (the learning environment.)
Ref: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper104/ReevesITForumJan08.pdf

Reply to Discussion


© 2024   Created by Paul Terlemezian.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service