Interviews

| Marc Rosenberg | Gloria Gery | Rob Foshay |

Of the Four C's of Success, culture, champion, communication and change, which is the most difficult "C" to achieve?

MR: 

	"When you want an organization to change, whether it is around e-learning or any other business transformation, you must have one or more champions..."

"'Change' is clearly the most difficult because the other three are prerequisites. When you want an organization to change, whether it is around e-learning or any other business transformation, you must have one or more champions who will lead (and role model) you through the process, an open and thorough communications plan to help everyone understand what the change is all about, and an overall culture that is accepting of the change. This is not to say that the others, especially culture are not difficult -- they are, but if you don't have these in place, the change you seek will be very short-lived, and the next time you try it, the resistance will be greater."

You suggest that "developing an effective communications plan will be an important element" in an e-learning environment.  What role does employee input play in the communications among senior managers? 

MR:  Change is best when supported at all levels of the organization and when participation is robust across the business.  But change cannot be sustained unless there is real support from the top -- where the proverbial "buck" stops.  So gather input from everyone, but, at the end of the day, make sure your senior managers are the point men or women with the message.

What words of wisdom would you offer to a fledgling organization wishing to integrate e-learning strategies?

MR:  Without a sustainable and supportable e-learning strategy, one that clearly describes your value proposition, you are likely to fail in your e-learning efforts, no many how many courses you put online.

Since you wrote Electronic Performance Support Systems in 1991, you say that "we've continued on the inexorable path toward providing electronic resources of increasing variety, but the fundamental defaults of training, providing reference resources and periodic coaching for on-the-job learning have not shifted much."  Is this still true 10 years later? What is different now?

GG:  Yes, it's still true.  Defaults die hard and continue to be reinforced by functional management who measure outcomes with traditional metrics. What's different now is that we have ubiquitous available technology that has been justified for other purposes.

	"What's different now is that we have ubiquitous available technology that has been justified for other purposes. We can easily piggyback on it and don't have to justify the purchase of technology based on learning and performance support projects."

We can easily piggyback on it and don't have to justify the purchase of technology based on learning and performance support projects.  We are also shifting work to non-traditional performers.  And much of the work that was traditionally performed by employees is being done by suppliers, vendors and customers.  The eCommerce and web services people are implementing performance support and they are doing it without fanfare.  Customers typically have discretionary relationships with us. If other providers do a better job, they can shift who they buy from. As such, we consciously or unconsciously use a higher standard for software design for outsiders than we do for employees. We can't assume they will tolerate instruction. And we generate performance environments that don't require it.  Ironic, isn't it?

Of the five elements of performance support systems, task structuring support, knowledge, data, tools and communications/collaboration, which has been the most difficult in your experience to achieve/implement?

GG:  Task Structuring. The reason is that there is no functional group in an organization that is responsible for achieving this. The IT folks focus on data and the training and documentation folks focus on knowledge and instruction (which is a sequential form of knowledge).  There are groups focusing on bringing in tools like collaboration tools, but the task structuring for normal work tasks has no "home." And functional organizations don't do things they are not measured on.

You suggest that "instructional systems design methods will have to change to accommodate new outcomes and the merging roles."  What advice do you have for an instructional designer developing a performance support system?

GG:  Redirect and expand what you do in traditional instructional design methodology to additional outcomes. Consider that technology permits different alternatives.  Much instruction is compensatory for the fact that we couldn't get people either or both of the following at the moment of need:

• task structuring support
• knowledge integrated with that support so that it's accessible at the moment of need.

So we taught people in advance and hoped they would internalize and apply procedures/process and knowledge.  

Think more broadly.  In order of leverage or impact, the following should be considered:

• what should be supported directly through software interfaces and automated tools
• what should be referenced -- and hopefully from the above context
• what should be learned through instruction in advance of task performance
• what should be collaborated upon.

Task analysis is, of course, the basis for task structuring.  Typically, those designing instruction come to a screeching halt when analyzing tasks that are complex and require branching based on data or conditions.  We don't know how to represent tasks that can't be represented in simple flow charts. We must learn how to express tasks that follow rules or complex conditional relationships. Data processing professionals think in terms of representing relationships in tables and rules. Instructional designers must acquire that skill. We must also consider that data which is specific to a situation drives task progression. Sometimes rules must be applied to that data and instructional designers have limited experience in figuring out how to teach rule-based behavior. IT professionals develop programming logic to execute in those cases. Even when we don't know how to develop that programming logic, we must be alert to when it should be employed and bring people with the appropriate skills into the team.

We focus on knowledge representation and generally represent concepts, definitions, etc. well.  But we must go beyond that to other content that relates to task sequencing and rules and relationships.

"We must also give up the idea that competence must exist within the person and expand our view that whenever possible it should be built into the situation."

  For example, user interfaces that dim and bold based on user selections represent conditional relationships.  That's just a simple example of the kind of alternative we must consider.

We must also "give up" the idea that competence must exist within the person and expand our view that whenever possible it should be built into the situation. 

RF:  The basic question to ask is what do you want learners to do that will demonstrate to them and to you that they’ve mastered the material. 

	"What’s missing from most distance-systems is the opportunity for learners to do anything."

One must build in frequent opportunities to do that 'thing' and to receive feedback.  What’s missing from most distance-systems is the opportunity for learners to do anything.  The most common way to demonstrate learning is through scenario-based, problem-based models to work through problems, talk to each other and to instructors.

RF:  There are a range of types of knowledge, from declarative to procedural.  As a general rule, declarative and well-structured procedures are easy to teach on a computer as long as your content can be represented with visual, text, and aural interactions.  It is more effective and more efficient than classroom settings and there are huge advantages to this method. 

Ill–structured problem-solving issues are harder for a computer to maintain a dialogue.  Instead, the computer will be valuable as a tool.  Instruction in this case should really be done by humans through, perhaps, using computer-based communications.  Allow for variability for content.  

Most cases involve an optimum mix of both, a blended learning approach.  Think rigorously about what you want to teach and the components of the curriculum. 

How would you advise someone wanting to implement learner-management tools, including performance reporting?

RF:  There are lots of tools available and many considerations.

1. Think clearly about what information you want to capture and handle.  This includes simple stuff like student log-in ids, grades, utilization of logins, but also assessment information, and portfolio information.
2. Consider the ability of the system to align assessment, instruction and information components to objectives. Some people assume that courses are separate and packaged. Others make courses on the fly from objects. Courses do not exist separate from its management system, which has its advantages and disadvantages.
3. Consider platform issues such as browsers, band-width, security, etc. Are systems designed to work at a particular scale?

RF:  

1. Content considerations, as mentioned above. 
2. Audience appropriateness; keep the audience in mind.
3. Appropriate instructional strategies.
4. Overall course structure, such as objectives, motivation, sequencing.

RF:  Learning is inherently social; it's a social activity. 

	"Learning is inherently social; it's a social activity."

Important lessons are learned through interactions with other learners and performers.  There are important messages to convey, e.g., this is important, what comes next, how does it fit in with what I’m doing.  These messages are conveyed through group interaction, instructors’ enthusiasm about subject, their passion.  The more ill-structured the issue, the more humans have to do it. Creating an online learning community is very important.