Reinforcing learning from an online conference

During one of the sessions in the online conference Corporate Learning Trends and Innovations 2008, one of the presenters (I can't remember which) brought up point that we may not be taking notes as we used to.

This got me to thinking about how my learning is reinforced when I attend a conference like this. I can tell you that I am not sitting by taking notes using pen and paper--or even taking notes via the computer. I do take notes in a more traditional class, but more often than not, these are just keywords. The keywords are used to trigger a memory.

However, my style of learning requires that I make a connection to ideas or something I have learned previously to retain the information. So how do I do this in a digital environment?

First of all, I look for visual cues; chat, discussion, images. In a format like this conference, I monitor the oral presentation, but really pay attention to the text and images. Part of the reason is that I know these sessions are being taped, so I know that I can always go back to hear something I missed.

I think typing my reactions to the speaker helps to reinforce my learning. It is like social note taking. I like the feel of talking through a concept which the chat function allows. I then leave the session and go to the discussion forums. This also helps me to process the information and concepts presented in the sessions.

Finally, blogging allows me to tie in ideas that I have been working on, bringing in resources, and synthesizing ideas to conceptualize my learning, sometimes ending in mental models, sometimes frameworks, and often new questions to pursue.

As a result, I come away from these online conferences with a much deeper understanding than from face to face conferences.

Is there (should there be) a difference between workplace learning and "academic" learning?

I am beginning to find out the divide that some people have created between "workplace" learning and "academic" learning. As someone who has helped develop and deliver workplace training and taught for a number of years in business and communication education, I just don't see the disconnect.

Granted, I come from a different perspective than many business faculty and from many in the "training" field. Working on my Ph.d. in Education, I find I am fighting (although not alone) the "trainers" who feel that adult education in the workplace is "different" than teaching at the university level. The main differences I have seen have been in expected assessments (which are becoming increasingly dictated by business recruiters), motivation, and price. However, even in the motivation area, I have plenty of students that really want to be in college and many that don't just as I have had participants in a workplace seminar who only wanted to get out of work or did not want to be in training because they had more important things to do along with those that really wanted to learn what I was teaching them so they could do their job better.

So, what are the similarities?

1. Relevant content for the student
2. Student choice
3. Time for reflection (multiple workshops over a long period of time for the workplace; in class time for students to reflect)
4. Theory and practice (in other words, a good explanation as to WHY students or trainees should do things differently)
5. Good classroom management skills and many activities to practice
6. Feedback
7. Developing a safe environment to make mistakes and learn from them
8. Something tangible to take away (a paper, a project, a report, an outline, a check list) that demonstrates what you learned

I was shocked at the line drawn in the Working/Learning Carnival. It was obvious that "academics" were perceived to have nothing to contribute to the "real world". However, I think there needs to be more collaboration between workplace and academic learning specialists especially as there is a greater call to align college graduate standards to business needs. Schools need to start working with the learning specialists in companies to identify what skills are needed and what is working in training, just as learning specialists need to look at what skills are being developed in the "academic" world. Both groups might be surprised to learn what was attempted and what has really worked.

Are we doing our students a disservice

This week has been one of frustration for my teaching. I have three classes, all of which are using technology. I am finding that my students post and expect immediate response. This can be very demanding, as I have a family, snow days, my dissertation, and other outside pressures to contend with. I feel that my immediate response to them is training them to expect immediate responses.

Our Students Expectations

I believe that this is a generational problem that perhaps in 20 years will not be as important. Our current students are used to IMing, not having to wait for information. If they do not get the response they want, they simply move on to the next thing. Many of my generation (late babyboomers) look at this as impatience and rudeness. However, for those that have grown up using technology, this is a normal way to communicate.

So how do we prepare them for the intergenerational workforce? By accommodating to their form of communication, are we adequately preparing them for life after school? And will they be able to conform and learn how to fit into the communication styles of the generation to follow them?

Teaching them to be Life Long Learners

Related to this is a problem I saw when reviewing the course feedback. In comments about my course, students complained about having to do readings, projects, and even coming to class. Many of them perceive education as a means to find out information that they then will need to have to pass a test. They have very little understanding (or patience) in learning how to learn. They do not see this as necessary. I think they feel that if they have a set of facts and figures for a specific profession, this is all the learning they will need for the rest of their life.

So how do we prepare them for the rigors that the new organization will require? Is this why there is a perception that our students are ill-equipped as they enter the business world? By allowing them to fill out simple course and instructor evaluations in which they identify their preferences, are we really finding out how effective an instructor or course was in preparing them for their chosen profession? Or is this a tool that can be used not to evaluate the instructor, but rather to determine the need gap between student expectations and instructor delivery? And how do we close that gap, once we have identified it? And what about the larger gap between what a student wants and what employers expect?