Training magazine video here. Becoming a much more important magazine/ web presence as we write, as Defined Learning Experiences bleed into each other.
For some reason, what seems obvious is taking a bit of time to become common knowledge. Learning is learning, and if you know how to “do it online” in one field, you can do it in another field. Thus businesses who train their workers can also teach a broad range of “subjects” using similar methods.
As has been previously mentioned, professional development is one of those places with egregious fees because there’s a gap or disconnect between the customer and the vendor. Often the fee is simply paid by the institution for which the customer works. Which apparently doesn’t care how much it costs…or feels a “costly” course ensures prestigious credentialed employees, or something.
In the end, the key as we’ve been pondering, is who does accrediting, and why do you need it? What does it do for the employee, and the employer, and will we see some new form of “capability wallet” that follows us around allowing us to get employment, or qualify for stuff like licenses from state/ or fed in various professions…. “What’s in your iWallet?”
BTW, recently in “Training” magazine, I note Orkin ranked #30 this year, up from #52 in 2012. (Jan/Feb issue pg 66.) Small blurb mentions IVOD programs started in 2012, and favorable impact on sales. No mention of Tempo by name…
Interesting subject and maybe I can share a few observations base on my dealings with enterprise “Training & Learning Professionals” and my Bar Association continuing education (professional development??) requirements.
1) Within the Enterprise, he T&L Professionals are often incumbent gatekeepers. They represent centralized control and they have jobs to protect. They definitely don’t like “User Generated Content” and other social media oriented training/learning.
They like technology that makes their life easier or enhances the quality and perceived value of their work, but often don’t want to share for fear of spilling the “secret sauce” that is their security blanket.
2) There are a variety of factors that help protect “professional development” fees. First and foremost is that the “accrediting” entity is often the one who is paid for the service or they get a cut from the vendor – this definitely is the case with Bar Associations which have an absolute monopoly in most states.
3) Another factor is that many professional development programs are provided by largely social association who’s members expenses are often approved by other members within the association. One example is the Communications Media Managers Association (CMMA) which includes professional communications (including training) personnel from a wide range of large corporations and government entities.
Vendor sponsors (like Globecomm) pay for entertainment at CMMA events (via membership and sponsorship) in exchange for access to the membership. A typical Enterprise may have 5-10 members, only one (typically a senior executive) of whom has their expense reports approved by someone outside the department.
Your comment made me think about the issue of breaking training/learning down into small chunks – they are often called “learning objects’ (I am still unsure if this is the same as PSA’s DLEs). In any event, the move to mobile devices and “point of use” training has enhanced the importance of the concept.
In addition to creating original content in “short form”, there is some desire to repurpose existing long form training content. Via (http://www.viadirect.com) is an example of a company providing cloud-based services to address this need.
Maybe we are onto something. There are certain arrangements whereby certain products and costs are “processed” in our economy, that may be “disrupted” by cloud arrangements for those products and those costs.
Education…we can see clearly how that is happening at least for higher ed. Healthcare, Stephen Brill points out the bizarre “arrangements” whereby medical products and services are “vended” (sp)?
Now in professional development, there’s apparently similarly “privileged” gatekeepers that could be “cloud distributed” as a work around, perhaps. How much of the economy is susceptible to this kind of disruption, and how much of this has already taken place?
BTW, to understand DLE, start with the concept “course”. A course is one type of DLE. A training is another type of DLE.
But it’s harder and harder to know what we mean by “course” or “training” and a slew of other “mixed” types of learning activities exist, or are coming into existence.
Rather than stumbling along trying to find the right “term” for the instance we are right here right now referring to, we have a uber category to insert =DLE.
Later, when “learning objects, courses, trainings, sessions, webinars,” etc have perhaps developed firmer distinctions for their cloud manifestations, we won’t need the term DLE as often. But maybe they won’t cohere into sub terms very well, and we’ll need a broad encompassing term like DLE all the more.
For now, DLE helps us see learning components that are shared “across the board”…and this is a useful way to proceed. OSISTM.
Of course, along comes Mitra who says you don’t need much in the way of “Defined” and that you can mostly work with just the everyday Human Learning Reflex. Actually, one could argue that if one is using the web, that is a DLE, not an unadorned Learning Experience.
It’s pretty hard to talk about learning these days. =^)