A recent post by my colleague in the Internet Time Alliance, Jane Hart, has created quite the stir. In it, she talks about two worlds: an old world and a new world of workplace learning. And another colleague from the Serious eLearning Manifesto, Will Thalheimer, wrote a rather ‘spirited’ response. I know, respect, and like both these folks, so I’m wrestling with trying to reconcile these seemingly opposite viewpoints. I tried to point out why I think the new perspective makes sense, but I want to go deeper.
Jane was talking about how there’s a split emerging between old-school L&D and new directions. This is essentially the premise of the Revolution, so I’m sympathetic. She characterized each, admittedly in somewhat stark contrast, representing the past with a straw man portrait of an industrial era, and a similar version of a new and modern approach much more flexible and focused on outcomes, not on the learning event. And I’ve experienced much of the former, and recognize the value of the latter. It’s of course not quite as cut-and-dried, but Jane was making the case for change and using a stark contrast as a motivator.
Will responded to Jane with some pretty strong language. He acknowledged her points in a section where he talks about points of agreement, but then after accusing her of being too broad brush, he commits the same in his section on Oversimplifications. Here he points out extreme views that he implies are the views being painted, but are overly stated as “always” and “never”.
Look, Will fights for the right things when he talks about how formal learning could be better. And Jane does too, when she looks to a more enlightened approach. So let’s state some more reasonable claims that I hope both can agree with. Here I’m using Will’s ‘oversimplifications’ and infusing them with the viewpoints I believe in:
- Learners increasingly need to take responsibility for their learning, and we should facilitate and develop it instead of leaving it to chance
- Learning can frequently be trimmed (and more frequently needs to change the content/practice ratio), and we should substitute performance support for learning when possible
- Much of training and elearning is boring and we can and should do better making it meaningful
- That people can be a great source of content, but they sometimes need facilitation
- That using some sort of enterprise social platform can be a powerful source for learning, with facilitation and the right culture, but isn’t necessarily a substitute when formal learning is required
- That on-the-job learning isn’t necessarily easy to leverage but should be a focus for better outcomes in many cases
- Crowds of people have more wisdom than single individuals, when you facilitate the process appropriately
- Traditional learning professionals have an opportunity to contribute to an information age approach, with an awareness of the bigger picture
I do like that Will, at the end, argues that we need to be less divisive and I agree. I think Jane was trying to point in new directions, and I think the evidence is clear that L&D needs to change. I think healthy debate helps, we need to have opinions, even strong ones, hopefully without rancor or aspersions. I don’t know quite why Jane’s post triggered such a backlash, but I hope we can come together to advance the field.