Speaking  of Twitter back channel. I described three modes of Twitter back channel use:  Single Channel Presenter Feedback, Single Channel Audience Feedback, and Multi-Channel Audience Feedback using Tweetgrid or Tweetdeck.  (Note that I did not include anything about “follower feedback” ).

Here is a list of inexpensive cameras that make creating YouTube Videos quite easy: Kodak ZX10 series,  Samsung HMX series and the really inexpensive Vivitar DVR series. The most powerful tip for improving video quality is to light the scene really well.  If you do you will find any of these capture video with acceptable results for YouTube.

I promised I would give a free virtual session on Getting Started with WordPress to any of the attendees.   I’m extending this offer to any of my blog readers too. Contact me if you would like to attend.  See rollyourownblog.com for my email link.  You’ll also find the Tweetrr code for inside the firewall backchannel operation on that site.  Also contact me if you attended the session and didn’t get the handout.

I hope to hold the session by May 15, 2011 so let me know soon.

So check out the fine print at each site and add some life to your podcasts! And if you find some additional sources, please add them in your feedback to this blog.

Royalty Free Music Sources:

http://www.podsafeaudio.com/ free with attribution

http://www.musicalley.com/ free with attribution

http://www.pacdv.com/sounds/free-music.html free with attribution

http://free-loops.com/ free with attribution

http://www.musopen.com/music.php free with attribution

http://incompetech.com/ attribution, Optional $5 contribution

http://square-peach.com/mp3-rock.html $ but as low as $2.29 per song

http://www.magnatunes.com $ for commercial productions, free for non-commercial and students

http://musicbakery.com/ $

http://www.royaltyfreemusic.com $

http://www.royaltyfreemusiclibrary.com/ $

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Content_Curators - This is the big list to look thru. Most sites on this list offer creative commons licensing,
but you need to verify for podcast use.

Enjoy!

The Performance Support community is getting active again. Bob Mosher and Con Gottfredson, two official gurus of the movement, have recently launched their new performer support website on Ning: (http://performersupport.ning.com).

They make a strong case for including performance support in the eLearning solution set. I think it’s even stronger than the case they make. Here’s why:

There are two major areas where performance support is a win, Formal and Informal training.

1. Formal training: The biggest problem with formal training is usually budget – everything from the resources to create it to the time commitment to attend it. Of course, it still takes some resource to create PS solutions, but including this solution in your repertoire means you have an option can eliminate formal training and turn it into a “just in time with just enough” solution. Having a job aid, reference tool, special calculator, or other support tool may be all the learner needs instead of attending a four hour training course. It is an efficient and effective solution to the budget issue of formal training.

2. Informal training. With all the resource issues swirling around formal training, who has time to improve informal training? Yet it’s clear that 90% of what people learn about their job is from informal sources. So even a small percentage lift in informal training has a major effect on employee productivity.

Everyone knows of the post-its found on the side of the screen that have those invaluable bits of information that make the job go easier. Every job has some arcane information you only hear about by the watercooler or at a conference or when getting to talk with someone in the “other division” who has come up against the same problems. Getting folks to share that kind of information yields big benefits for all employees who face the same challenges. Sharing this information on a forum, a wiki or blog is an easy way to accelerate informal learning. This provides a way of disseminating those job aids, cheat sheets, and helpful sticky notes of information you eventually come up with when learning the ropes of a new job to the folks who really need them, authored by the folks who actually use them.

So in the end what’s more revolutionary in training than saying you don’t need to be out for three days to take this training course when all you really need is a two hour module and a great job aid?  Or maybe even forget all the training and just use this job aid.

Viva la revolution!

Richard Cook, MD wrote an elegant paper in 1998 entitled How Complex Systems Fail.  It’s been referenced a few times since, usually after some major technical snafu.  Michael Krigsman of ZDNet invoked it this time to point out how informed  leadership must take a role in establishing a culture of safety when dealing with complex technical systems. I agree with his point.  However, Cook’s paper warns us of much, much more than that.

Cook outlines 18 points in his paper in his four page paper. Each one of them is worth a year’s study.  I won’t list them all here. I urge you to read the paper instead.  Here are two important themes from it:

1. Because of their redundancy, complex systems are inherently unstable in many circumstances.  The redundancies are built-in “failsafe” responses to possible or even expected failure of some set of  component.  They are constantly operating at sub-optimal levels since the systems are designed to keep working despite component failures. All it takes is some novel occurrence beyond the finite catalog of anticipated failures to place a system in an entirely new state of operation – which, of course, could be wholly inappropriate.
2. Humans are a huge source of variability in complex systems. Humans are necessarily interchangeable because of change of shifts, vacations, sick time, promotions, layoffs,  firings, mergers, etc. So even if complex systems are initially staffed with only top performers, this will change and the reliability of the systems will change.

The net effect of these two points is to say that the reliability of complex systems is continuously changing and can quickly slip into catastrophe when a series of seemingly minor incidents occur in such a novel fashion that completely unexpected major failure ensues.

The news is not good.  There is no magic bullet. No simple root cause.  At our current level of understanding, it takes more than just hard work to manage  complex systems without error.  Even with constant vigilance, preparedness, and training a series of  seemingly innocent failures in a complex system end up becoming phrases etched in the international consciousness like Challenger, Bopahl, Three Mile Island, Exxon Valdez, and the BP Gulf Spill.

It is clear that we must learn much, much more about building and managing complex systems.  Cooks’s paper tells us that the inherent nature of complex systems invites catastrophe. And now more than ever, we live in the age of complex systems.

1. Hold the camera steady and level. Think of it being the window into the viewer’s world. This is especially important for the Flip or any other small lightweight camera. People have a tendency to jerk small cameras around quickly which creates video that is unsettling to watch. It’s nice for special effects, but most content does not benefit from rapid movement of the camera. When appropriate, use a tripod to help keep the camera level and steady. Otherwise, hold your arms to your chest and camera close to your body to simulate a tripod stance.

2. Good, ample, bright lighting gives better results.If you don’t have the budget for studio lighting, at least control subject placement so that the subject is well lit.  For example, place them near windows for side lighting. Be careful of lights directly overhead as they give deep shadows on subjects faces. Learn about using “flags” to shade overhead lighting and enhance side lighting. Learn about basic light positioning – especially if you have the budget for even just portable studio lighting.

3. Good audio makes video look better.  Try to use an external mike closer to the subject rather than the on-camera mike. (Not available on the  Flip, but if your camera has an external mike jack, consider using it.)  A lightbulb changer extension pole with duct tape, an extension cable, and an inexpensive dynamic mike makes a great studio boom mike setup. Consider using a $60 audio mixer with a couple of mikes for interview formats.

4. To economize, shoot to minimize editing. Editing time can far outweigh shooting time so use a script and rehearse whenever possible.

5. If a subject flubs their lines, just keep rolling and have them only redo the mistake instead of starting all over from the top of the scene. Of all the edits you must do, cutting footage is the easiest to execute in this digital world. It’s easier to cut out the small mistakes than to go way back to the top of the scene. Also, repeating long sequences up to the mistake only invites more mistakes as most blooper reels demonstrate.

- Rick Darby

Here is the matrix showing which tools I’ve found to work for each moment of need:

1. For the first time:   ILT, Synch VC, Asynch WBT, PS, EPSS

2. Need to learn more:  ILT, Synch VC, Asynch WBT, PS, EPSS

3. When trying to remember:  PS, EPSS, Blog, Wiki, Podcast, Newsletter

4. When things change:  PS, EPSS, Blog, Wiki

5. When things go wrong: PS, EPSS, Blog, Wiki

ILT = Instructor Led Training (i.e. face-to-face classroom). PS = Performances Support or job aids. EPSS = Electronic Performance Support.  Synch VC = Synchronous virtual classroom (e.g. Webex, Centra, Adobe Connect, etc.)

Here is the reference list for the presentation:

1. “Memory. A Contribution to Experimental Psychology”. Hermann Ebbinghaus, 1885.

2. Performance DNA.  http://www.astd.org

3. Mosher and Gottfredsen. Five Moments of Need.

4.  Wikinomics by Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams. Penguin Group. New York, NY. 2006.

5. MIT Opencourseware http://ocw.mit.edu/ •

6. Hanifan, L. J. (1916) “The rural school community center”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 67: 130-138. Also see Hanifan, L. J. (1920) “The Community Center, Boston”: Silver Burdett.

7. Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam. Simon and Schuster. New York, NY. 2000.

This conversation entitled “The End of the Industrial Training Era” between Jay Cross and Clark Quinn is a good starting point.

http://www.clomedia.com/videocast/

- Rick Darby

I haven’t found many studies that deal directly with duration. Moreover, retention is more complicated than that. Consider the following:

1. A proxy for the duration question is the concept of attention span. There are some studies on this. Ruff and Lawson found that attention span varies roughly with age of the learner. This was for very young subjects, so extrapolation to adult learning has some risk. Subsequent rules of thumb derived from this finding say that attention span is 1-4 minutes per year. So a 30 year old adult learner might be able to focus attention from 30 minutes to two hours before some kind of break is required. It’s reasonable to assume that successive work-break cycles have diminishing returns.

2. There’s been a lot of good research by Clark, Nguyen, and Sweller on learning efficiency in the context of e-learning, but much of it can be applied to the classroom. Issues like cognitive load, segmenting, pacing, and practice are all relevant to classroom training. They may easily override concerns of duration of the session.

So assuming good presentation, pacing, and segmenting techniques are employed, and refreshing breaks are given, you may expect adequate efficent learning from 4,6, and 8 hour sessions for adult learners. This is supported to some extent by Schultz and Sharp’s study finding no difference between 50 minute and 75 minute classroom sessions.

However, if the content somehow requires concerted attention for an uniterrupted span, I would predict that learning efficiency would start to diminish after 30 minutes and drop off dramatically after two hours.

I think you’ll find most successful presenters and facilitators would agree with this. I plan to bring this question up at our session at Learning2009. Check this blog for the results

References:

Development of sustained, focused attention in young children during free play. Ruff, Holly A.; Lawson, Katharine R. Developmental Psychology. Vol 26(1), Jan 1990, 85-93.

Efficiency in Learning by Clark, Nguyen, and Sweller. 2006. Pfeiffer. San Francisco, CA.

The Effect of Class Duration on Academic Performance and Attendance in an Introductory Computer Class. Leah A. Schultz and Jason H. Sharp. Proceedings of ISECON, 2007, v24.

I have worked with a number of organizations in the past who have faced the challenge of building a new learning technology infrastructure. Depending on the needs, the available technology, and the resources at hand, the ideal solution has been different for each. 

Given the power of today’s LMSs, LCMSs, virtual meeting tools, talent managment systems, social media networks, and other related learning technology tools you would think you could settle on a core set of products that solve most organizations needs. Well, here are some reasons why it’s more complicated than that:

As I mentioned  training needs, resources at hand (including implementation team and budget available), and the technology available are key factors in determining a plan.

 Another dimension to consider is implementation time versus business goals.  For example, if there is a short term objective to train all staff on a new business process in the next ninety days, embarking on an eighteen month learning management system implementation project would be woefully inadequate.

 So in the end the most productive approach involves the following:

 Gain an understanding of the business goals to ensure alignment

• Assess the training needs in light of the business goals
• Survey the geographic distribution of the target training audiences
• Assess the candidate learning technologies’ reach vis-à-vis the audiences’ locations
• Obtain reasonable estimates of the implementation time for the infrastructure pieces
• Compare with business goals
• Create an implementation roadmap that maximizes audience training while minimizing implementation time

 Some might question why a training needs analysis is necessary.  Content and audience needs drive the infrastructure design. For example, high end leadership skills training is usually delivered via live instructor-led physical classroom training.  Moving this content to 100% self-paced web-based training is likely to fail to meet the course objectives. Yet, there may be some topics covered within the leadership course that might be well suited to web-based training.

Therefore, it is conceivable that a blended approach would be most effective training-wise as well as cost-wise.

 In addition, because large organizations have many target audiences, this is usually a multivariate problem. Each audience provides a vector of need for the ultimate design.

So on the surface it might not seem that a training needs analysis of audience and content is directly related to learning infrastructure design, but it actually is a pre-requisite to a successful and robust design.

 Also training needs change over time as the organization changes. For example, one large services company’s current learning infrastructure has excellent North American coverage affording real-time full motion video with interactive learning stations for each learner at every branch in North America. However, the company’s recent international growth poses new challenges. The cost effectiveness of providing this type of interactive satellite-oriented video dramatically drops off as coverage for additional continents is considered. Alternative delivery methods are now being assessed.

 So it is wise to try to anticipate upcoming changes to the curriculum (which are often influenced by changes in business challenges) so that the proper amount of flexibility of the learning infrastructure is built in. Robust learning infrastructures for large organizations take time to build and exact a cost to change quickly.  You should be comfortable with its scope and capability for a horizon of approximately three years or more so that implementation costs don’t consume too large a percentage of your efforts.

So business challenges and time frames, training needs, and technology capabilities and constraints all affect the design of the learning infrastructure.  Taking these factors into consideration will help you build a successful platform that responds to today’s business needs.