Educators have come to understand the need to engage learners in all facets of education. Even face-to-face environments need hands-on learning activities so that participants are actually getting involved in the subject matter. When it comes to eLearning, it has…
Learn, Network and Connect in Chicago this November Though I have had the pleasure of attending many conferences held by ASAE, my first visit to the Healthcare Associations Conference will take place this coming November. This event attracts around 200 attendees and…
I am a dissertator at the University of Wisconsin, and my research topic is on “Factors that enable collaboration between the IDD (instructional design and development) team and the subject matter expert.” I have written a series of blog entries on the various expertise sharing factors, which I have discovered (slow drip style) can be utilized by eLearning managers. While conducting my research, one interviewee said bluntly: “the amount of collaboration really comes down to the personality mix of team members.” Well, yes and no. “Personality style” and “influencing style” of the group leader(s) and team members does play a role. But the topic of team member “style” is not specifically part of my research.
When you are taking a live workshop and putting it online, you do not have the pressure of designing a sixteen-week curriculum like K-16 educators — All you have to do is cover the equivalent of four to six hours of instruction.
The challenge is the intangibles of face to face — the social behavior like bonding and talking. In Part I, Deb Adair’s comment stressed the importance of building social presence to replace live interaction. As online learning developers, we must build learning experiences with more content and more opportunity for learners to discuss topics of their interests with peers. This blog post will outline the second most important concept in delivering an online course: Consistent design of learning activities and use of Bloom’s taxonomy to encourage learner engagement in higher level learning.
A lot of trainers and instructors have struggled with the question, “How can I take my full day workshop and create an online equivalent?”Design approaches for course conversion range from providing recorded webinar/webcast series to purist academic approaches following formulas like William Horton’s Absorb—Do—Connect methodology to even more complex evaluation-driven design using a Quality Matters rubric. As with a lot of things in life, the design approach selected often depends on the authoring tools and resources at your disposal.
In this first blog post in a series, we will discuss a main point of contention against repurposing face-to-face (F2F) workshops into eLearning: loss of human contact and interaction. When it comes to crafting online learning activities, how do you assemble them so that not only are the learning objectives covered, but the learners are thoroughly engaged in the material? Most often I am asked: “What can we do to bring personality to the online experience?” F2F instructors often use their dynamic personalities and passion for the subject matter to engage learners. One of the primary objectives of attending a workshop is to gather practitioners together to learn from each other.
Spring is finally here—and it usually means a busy period for eLearning developers who are productively delivering on 1st quarter promises. I have been following Clive Shepard and Elliot Masie’s posts on the economic condition in the training and development field. Both report a promising outlook for eLearning compared with face to face training.
We are receiving several jobs and inquiries for converting face-to-face workshops (one or two day events) into mostly asynchronous eLearning seminars/courses/eWorkshops. Not quite sure what to call this type of eLearning event, especially when it has an introductory synchronous activity.
Did the first eLearning Conference of 2009 suffer the same fate as the consumer electronics show in December? Were the numbers down? I asked the conference administrators several times what the attendance numbers were at the annual TechKnowledge conference held last week at the Las Vegas Rio Convention Center. The answer was repeatedly a suspicious “We don’t know yet.” My favorite part of the conference? Tony Karrer’s keynote speech on day two.
eLearning people have noted online that there are just too many conferences from which to pick. Here are some things to think about when you are deciding which conference to attend this year. Questions to ask yourself:
- Is there a pre-conference workshop I would like to attend?
- Do the keynote speakers interest me?
- Review who is speaking at the concurrent sessions. Do they interest me?
- Where is the conference located? Should I plan for a conference on my side of the country?
- What are my affiliations? Corporate? Academic?
- Where am I on the food chain? Designer? Programmer? Manager?
Here are my opinions on various conferences: