In an article by Donald H. Taylor in the December 2008 issue of inside learning technologies the author describes the process by which the early LMS systems were designed: “How did the vendors or the market researchers they employed, guess what functionality to include in their LMS1.0? They asked potential clients.” This process, carried out in the late 90s was applied to most other types of software (apart from those following a worse process – ask the developers to build them wherever they can). According to Taylor the result of this process was a “functionality wish-list based on solving today's issues piecemeal, not building something better for the future.” To me, this is the embodiment of: “you don't know what you don't know” – we invent things, solve problems and imagine based on what we know and experience: as a result we miss out on “the trick of doing things better or differently.”

Taylor provides the following table as an example:

PAPER-BASED APPROACH	TECHNOLOGY 'REPLICATION'	TECHNOLOGY EXTENSION
Provide manuals for instruction in the classroom.	Provide the same manuals in PDF online with no tutor support.	Divide resources into: A. Reference manuals, cross-referenced and with great searching B. Easily searchable instruction manuals C. EPSS/help systems D. Provide people for help were they can have the most effect.
Collect paper evaluation forms after every class and analyse obsessively.	Collect electronic evaluation forms after every class and analyse obsessively.	Forget evaluation forms and instead identify skill gaps prior to learning.
Collect paper-based performance / competency information once a year during an annual review and do little with it.	Do the same, but electronically.	Do the same, but use Internet technologies to make the information always in view and always linked to performance.

 

I believe that VLEs have suffered from a similar fate to that of the corporate LMS. However, we are now starting to see systems that use technology to extend, not fix, our paper-based everyday life. This 'extension' is critical to enabling learning in the information age where access to and contextualisation of information transforms it into knowledge.

These new 'systems' are not actually systems at all – the concept of content aggregation allows the user to 'pull' specific pieces of information and connect them together into a context relevant to him / her. Content aggregation systems have also gone from replication to extension; As explained in the mash-up wiki the two types of content aggregation systems – portals and mash-ups are different in that portals allow you to display information from different sources in the same way that this was exposed. In essence this is technology replication: by 'cutting out' the pieces of information that interests us (in the form of RSS feeds and similar) and glue them together on the same sheet we create the portal. On the other hand, the mash-up is actually technology extending an everyday task: it allows a user to take the raw data behind webpages (and other sources) and to re-contextualise it.

An excellent example of the more advanced content aggregation is the recent mash-up of tweets and Google maps: tweets that scored local snow out of 10, gave their postcode and used the tag uksnow were mapped on to a Google map of the UK essentially transforming raw data (tweets) into information by means of contextualisation. This can be found at: #uksnow Map 2.0 (see screenshot).

Moving forward, there is no doubt in my mind that the solution is, as mentioned by Wilson et al, standardisation. However, it is very important that we do not choose a rigid, limiting set of standards which are based on APIs and ensure that only students who have programming abilities can create a personalised environment. The answer to this could easily be products like Yahoo! Pipes or Apatar which rely on a visual model to facilitate the mashing-up. The one point on which I disagree with Wilson at al is that this is not the future: mashing up is happening every day by users who are not programming savvy. In fact, the ability to contextualise without external intervention opens up an additional option which current systems do not deal with – informal learning.

Tying the student's ability to contextualise raw data using today's e-portfolios will eventually lead to the more students centric approach that Ayala is pushing for. Personal development plans will define the path and competencies and skills rather than exam results will be the outcomes. This will of course mean that the targets system today in place will need to be abolished – that will happen eventually if not through intelligent governing than as a result of pressure from the corporate sector that needs capable employees.

At the end of the day, and probably in the same manner as they did in every century, schools and universities will have to equip students with the tools to learn and continue learning. From the introductory: enabling students to read through the basic – understanding how to access websites and how to evaluate their content and on to the intermediate: creating basic mash ups to the advanced: manipulating data in its raw form. Being the information technology the digital natives of tomorrow will move within the scope of consuming digital information and creating raw data (coming from researchers in universities and corporate). Anyone lacking the tools to process the never ending sea of data will be consigned to an underclass equivalent to today's illiterates.

Bayne holds that “the discussion about the striated nature of the network is of limited relevance” I believe that this issue is of great importance, especially so in the corporate space (although the nature of such a discourse couldn't be further from that space).

It is useful to begin with definitions – when looking at the subject of the striated net I found the way in which Bayne applied the Deleuze & Gattari concept to be too polar. I believe that it is possible to define levels of striation. One simple way of defining levels can rely on continuity: the smoothest websites can be accessed using a web browser, in these the navigation toolbar is in the same place and visual appearance is more or less similar. They are followed by striations created by visual appearance (where the user needs a few seconds or minutes to reorient himself) an example of this could be the system is available to a student at the Edinburgh University:

The two levels which follow are websites which have walls between them (the need to log in) and then Internet environments which require users to use external applications to access them (for example second life). Even with the simple differences - every new environment (and with it the different visual layout) gives the user the feeling that he is in a new place which needs to be explored.

According to the the Nielsen Norman Group, a firm specializing in human-computer interaction, “intuitive equals familiar”. In other words, a space (or website) which we are familiar with is intuitive. The move between spaces on the web (and specifically between striated and smooth spaces) manifests itself as a 'difference' between the two spaces. Bayne refers to this difference: “such a difference is as likely to make the task of online learners and teachers more problematic, or problematic in unfamiliar ways”. As mentioned before, despite identifying this difference, Bayne finds the discussion behind it to be “of limited relevance”.

My personal experience, mostly in the corporate world, has taught me otherwise – This is far from being a purely academical discussion – IT managers go to great lengths to create smoothness in the striated corporate 'INTRANET': unifying the look and feel of the different components of the system and using such devices as 'single sign-on' to streamline the user experience. This is done in the corporate quest to achieve “enhanced efficiency and productivity” and to make sure that while the user is in the 'protected corporate garden' they are faced with the familiar. This ensures that new systems can be added relatively painlessly into the garden and as such, also affects learning. As such, these are the “virtual shanty-towns” that Bayne finds hard to see. It is the regulation of function and form but not of content which leads to users who operate in a smooth net where they are not bogged down by the differences and therefore do not waste time on getting to know the new place they have travelled to.

Internet users actually strive for the smoother – the number of services targeting striation is constantly growing: services such as iGoogle and Symbaloo are just two examples. These are personal portals which are dedicated to 'smoothing out' of the differences between a number of independent information sources and websites. Further examples can be found in the multitude of tools unifying instant messaging, e-mails and in boxes etc

However, even when outside the corporate space, striated spaces can have their benefits when used in an educational setting - specifically for younger children. Closed environments make sure that children are not exposed to inappropriate materials creating a “protective garden” where experiences can be had but without the inherent risk that results from the openness of the web. In fact, looking at the pedagogies that Bayne mentioned (Ulmer and LeCourt) a similar exercise to Ulmer's mystory could be very effective for younger children within the context of the striated space – preparing them to operate within the smooth one outside. In this context striated space can be a positive: enabling and empowering. These children will grow up used to using closed e-learning systems, they will not see themselves as “unfortunate... to be working within an institution in which the use of the virtual learning environment is compulsory”.

 

Learning is defined by the free dictionary as: “The act, process, or experience of gaining knowledge or skill.” and “Behavioral modification especially through experience or conditioning”. Looking at social learning / web 2.0 tool led me to realise that while tools as delicious can be extremely useful in an academic learning and research setting it is actually the more mundane social learning tools which hold the key to realising the theory of true organisational learning.

In his book “The fifth discipline” Peter M. Senge defines the four disciplines required to build the learning organisation:

• Personal mastery

• Mental models

• Shared vision

• Team learning

   

While personal mastery and mental models can be achieved on an individual basis, reaching a shared vision and team learning in today's large multinational corporates is virtually impossible without the help of technology. Senge states that “There has never been a greater need for mastering team learning in organisations than there is today” this is partially a result of the rate of change in every day life – a shared vision established today might not be relevant by the tomorrow, team learning is subject to the same speed of change but is also a victim of globalisation – where teams could be spread across different countries.

According to a recent Bersin & associates factbook report, approaches to learning using social networking tools “are still in their infancy in the U.K. But training organisations are realising that most learning takes place outside of the classroom or online course.” this realisation that MOST learning occurs OUTSIDE the classroom cannot be underestimated when discussing learning in the corporate space. In fact, some organisations “noted that they are working toward a 70 / 20 / 10 learning model, wherein 70 percent of the learning takes place through on-the-job experiences and practice, 20 percent through collaboration with others (e.g., coaching, mentoring, social networking), and 10 percent through formal learning interventions. This type of blended approach uses formal learning to build fundamentals. But the bulk of learning happens through carefully crafted informal learning activities.”

When looking at the multitude of tools that fall under the category of social learning the most used one in the corporate space is communities of practice. According to the aforementioned Bersin report the most used social learning technology is currently used by 24% of US firms – Communities of Practice. These communities are supported by a number of tools such as Microsoft sharepoint (with a number of plug-ins), ELGG etc.

In their article “Communities of Practice for Professional Development” Heidi Fisk and David Holcombe define a Community of Practice (CoP): “a place where people with similar interests connect to learn from and with each other — to freely share their knowledge, insights, triumphs and tribulations.” It is easy to see how the shared vision mentioned by Senge fits into such a community when it exists within a specific organisation. Team learning is a little harder to distil from this definition but if we take into account Senge's definition of it: “Team learning is the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results its members truly desire.” then the ability to record and retrieve “knowledge, insights, triumphs and tribulations” means that the team (and in-fact the organisation as a whole) has gained knowledge which will modify the way the team (and therefore the organisation) behaves in the future.

Technological tools to store and retrieve this knowledge are critical since they are in effect the organisation's long term memory: when an employee wants to consult, for example, how the organisation dealt with a severe recession in the past he can bring it up in the internal system etc... this makes sure that learning takes place and not just an experience.

While the idea of social learning within educational organisations can prepare young learners for life in the workplace the concept comes into its own when used in universities and corporates: these are organisations which require long term memory to build on their activities in the past.

Having recently started sending my daughter (now aged 4½) to school I was very worried when I saw Ken Robinson's talk on schools and creativity. One of the opening statements relates to the purpose and origins of the public schooling system - unfortunately, Robinson is right – schools still operate as if their purpose is to “produce” standardised employees for an industrial era. The main problem with this is that this era is long gone (in the majority of the Western world at least). It is my experience that this intention to “produce” labourers is also present within the corporate training world. However, with today's information economy this ancient type of labourer is no longer needed – most work places need a multi-disciplined individuals capable of solving problems especially valuable in a 'cost cutting' environment where less employees are required to complete more and more diverse tasks.

Commercial organisations both in the UK and the US have, over the last few years, complained about young workers (coming out of schools and universities) not having the necessary skills for today's workplace. If we accept the purpose of the public school systems as stated in the opening paragraph than I would argue that those educational systems need to reconsider the way they teach if they are to continue fulfilling their own objectives of 'producing' a capable workforce. An example of this lack of skills can be found in the following – “A study commissioned by Hewlett Packard and conducted by Glenn Wilson, a psychologist at the University of London, confirmed that endless typing at a phone or computer keypad – along with the clearly obsessional checking for text messages – temporarily removes ten points of a user's IQ. … The hypothesized cause for this drop in IQ is that the constant distraction of messaging and emails prevents concentration on important tasks. Rapid reaction replaces thoughtful reflection.” (“the univesity of google”, Barbazon, p 76). The inability of employees to deal with today's information overload is creating what Barbazon (and the research she mentions) describes as “infomaniacs”. It is my opinion that the skills required to deal with this overload – effective time management, dealing with sensory overload, prioritising information are but a few of the skills (all within the digital context) which schools should be teaching.

However, schools, and other educational establishments are still stuck in the 19^th century mode of operating – in their article “Beyond Web 2.0: Mapping the technology landscapes of young learners” Clark et al discuss the ways in which youngsters use current technologies such as social websites and mobile phones. One of the questions raised by their work is “the potential transferability of skills between informal and formal settings.” In other words it is assumed that the skills acquired while using the web are informal and therefore not directly useful to the classroom or education. Schools are so troubled by this 'irrelevant' use of technology that “young People's 'everyday' use of digital technologies is encountering a process of de-legitimization as evidenced by the banning of mobile phone use in schools”.

In today's capitalist environment one would expect this skills gap to be bridged by an overactive training department in most organisations, surprisingly this is not the case - more and more companies understand that the majority of learning occurs outside the classroom. There can be a number of explanations for this situation (not enough research has been done on this) but to me it looks as if the speed of development of the new tools and required skills and the fact that we are a social learners translates into a failure on the part of traditional formal training.

This failure has translated well into e-learning: the majority of today's content is in the form of electronic flip books (where the “next” button is the king) which employees detest. The advent of standards like SCORM as meant that content producers can create mediocre and boring materials because of the standard. The truth is somewhere in between – while the existing standards do not dictate a boring online training product they make creativity almost impossible: in an attempt to be as efficient as possible (meaning: to be able to resell the same content to as many clients as possible) such concepts as reusability, (learning) content syndication, content repositories, training efficiency etc etc have taken the place of ideas such as knowledge retention, understanding, contextual applicability.

During the Internet bubble of the 1990s various researchers found out that one of the key elements to employee retention is the ability to offer such employees opportunity for personal growth this has also been the case with staff motivation. Staff retention and development is more important during tough economic times – a survey of 700 CIPD members held in February 2009 indicated that developing more talented in-house is the key approach (over 55%) to talent management during the recession. If e-learning is to take its proper place as an effective tool in the trainers (and managers) toolbox then 'efficiency' needs to be redefined; There is nothing wrong with an efficient learning program when efficiency means that students retain information after seeing it once. It is this efficiency that we need to strive to attain.