Very true. I’ve made the same case for Twitter and even though there are many, many ways one could use the tool, in it’s essence its a simple white box that “everyone” inuitively just gets; enter text, click to post. ESNs are slightly different, or one would make you THINK they are. Most functions and features mimic Web2.0 but where as with learning Web2.0 one could experiment, take their time, dip in, dip out… the E2.0 sponsors (i.e the org) thinks differently. The expectation is use, full use today. Its a purchase, a cost…where are my immediate returns? Why aren’t 100% using it 100% of the time! Time to experience, experiment,to find value are often considered luxuries vs. necessities in organizations. The belief on training for anything is it will shorten the learning curve and although this often may be true, Training is good for the “how” but the “why” is something that needs to ferment.
I think both, Dave. Factors external to the learner (such as the trainer or the UI) play an important role in the learning process, but arguably more importantly the learner must be willing and able to engage. We’ve all seen the latter overcome the former.
Hey Mark, how did you know I had ESNs in mind? Indeed, we could train the whole company on the system, but unless the employees want to learn, collaborate and contribute something extra – and the culture of the organisation promotes that behaviour – it won’t happen.
Ryan, I think you’ve highlighted the key difference between Facebook & an ESN in your comment: people are socially motivated to use Facebook for fun, to keep in touch with people they care about. Do they feel this way about an ESN? No – not unless they are internally motivated to contribute and drive increased engagement & use OR unless it was somehow made to be integral to their work. ( and then…here we are back at the conversation from your last post ; )). So much of this is about the organisational support, culture and role modelling of desired behaviours from leaders.
Reblogged this on Instructional Support at Wright and commented:
‘Because I’ve not been trained in it’ is a techno tool excuse that could mask fear, ‘I don’t see its use for me’, or reluctance to learn something that may go the way of betas.
I try to combat this fear and reluctance through an emphasis on what the tool can do for the individual and encouraging creative play.
@ Jeb – Fair point, Jeb. I’d suggest though that among those who do get Facebook, they work it out because they want to. Having said that, you could substitute the word “Facebook” with countless others.
When talking about globalisation of learning through courses such as MOOCs we tend to not realise what works in developing countries. This ‘motivation’ to learn a new technology may not be easy to materialise in actual learning simply because we are not used to be so independent in our learning.
Indeed Sharvaani, workplace learning in a Western country such as the one in which I live and work is a different context to that of a developing country. Yet I see in the West a dependence on “being trained” and an apathy or even resistance to independent learning. And then on the flipside in developing countries we have examples such as this: http://bit.ly/1wAPBLJ
Thank you for the reply. But what about students who are used to a particular educational system and pedagogy? Making younger children learn independently is easier than young adults
I am doing a research on the above in fact. New technology in a developing country.