[QUOTE I like this quote "The bottom line is that eLearning 2.0 is not about a bunch of applications, it's about adopting practices that leverage these applications to support work and learning in new, powerful ways."[QUOTE]
This statement is a perfect example of the thinking that causes so much consternation and waste in the training world. It says nothing about the effectiveness or efficiency of anything. All it does is advocate that which is new and "powerful" - whatever that may mean. To me, it means glitzy, and nothing more. It just supports the type thinking that design engineers have said went into some the technology used in glass cockpit flight decks - "We did it just because we could." Yet, the reality is that some of those "applications" caused many headaches for pilots - problems that did not exist before and problems for which no one had ever even anticipated.

To argue for a technology to use in learning is pointless unless you can back it up with real evidence. It doesn't matter whether or not someone tells you it worked for them. That's meaningless. What does it mean - "worked for them"?

So why go out of your way to advocate for technologies without more ammunition? The only reason I can think of is that you're driven by costs and convenience. BUT, that does not mean good learning will follow. Well, I guess that really doesn't matter anymore. I would much rather see training professionals spend their time investigating good design techniques and honing their craft at putting together good sound learning experiences than wasting their time studying every technological wonder that hits the market - and saying, how can we use this? As if the important thing is to use it - regardless of the consequences. It just doesn't make sense to spend so much of one's time on jibberish. If your learning outcome (assuming a good design) can be better achieved with something like a wiki, fine. But that is not the type thinking that I see here.

KaliKo,
Just a few thoughts:
1) we will never have useful data if we don't try something, and try to develop it. You cannot get hard data without a good sample size of real use.
2) Nobody I know is advocating using tech for tech's sake. Rather, since such a huge percentage of potential trainees/participants/learners are using this now in everyday life and work life, is it not a good idea to try to meet them where they are?
3) There is nothing that says that "good ID techniques" cannot be used with newer delivery methods. For example, one can post video and audio and text and provide hands-on practice all through a wiki.
4) Using new tools does not mean good learning will follow. But it may be that better learning will follow. We will only find by trying. I do not know of any other way. I think as training pros it is our job to learn the new tools well, apply good adult learning theory and see if it works. It is possible that progress can be good.
5) Evary day it seems that I learn something new. Sometimes I learn new delivery techniques; sometimes I learn new design techniques. Guys like Dave Meier, Silbernman and Thiagi have totally changed the way I design learning. One thing I have learned is that my "audience" is key. I need to meet them where they are more or less, not try to force them to come to where I am. If where they are is web 2.0, I will learn to go there. If they no longer want a banker's box of paper (I have a friend whose company started by giving out a box of stuff to each participant), I will stop doing that. If they want podcasts instead of synchronous audio, I will do that. My goal is to get them to learn, not to do things my way.

I know some trainers had trouble years ago when OHPs gave way to data projectors. "Why change?" they said. Now look at the benefits. Change happens.

quote:

There is nothing that says that "good ID techniques" cannot be used with newer delivery methods.

I don't think that's the issue. Where are the good ID techniques NOW? They seem to be few and far between. I don't care what kind of technology is thrown into the mix - I welcome it. What concerns me is that people will continue (as they already are) creating learning that doesn't actually help someone learn anything at all... yeah, but it sure looks pretty.

You can put gold on a pile of poo. It's still poo.

quote:

Originally posted by LoveLearning:
Where are the good ID techniques NOW? They seem to be few and far between. ...
You can put gold on a pile of poo. It's still poo.

Oh, I agree, LL. But good designers can use good techniques with new technologies, that's all I'm saying. The dearth of good design is another matter entirely, at least for me.

ILT typically uses an SME to prepare and also deliver the content, so I guess there are time-savings from an SME's perspective.

For E-Learning, the SME is still involved, only they are distanced from much of the preparation and delivery. (Although they will continue to be interrupted in their daily work tasks by being the middle-man, when the Developers require their person hours for initial design and later review discussions)