In our previous post, Elizabeth Griep, Forum’s Advanced Workplace Learning Practice Leader, addressed webinar questions on the “Virtual Classroom.” In this post, she is back to share her insights on more questions. The theme this time is “Learning beyond the Classroom.”
Though Elizabeth covers many facets of learning beyond the classroom, this topic is huge and extends beyond these questions. We’d like to hear about your experiences as well. To share your thoughts, experiences, and questions:
Do you include informal learning in your curriculums?
“Informal learning” is a term that’s gaining currency in the L&D world. It’s used in several ways. Because “informal” can sometimes imply “accidental,” we prefer the term “integrated learning.” Integrated learning is one of the three contexts for learning: event-based, sustained, and integrated – and takes place in the midst of the work. The trick is to make learning informal in the sense that people seize opportunities to learn as they arise in everyday situations, but intentional in the sense that the learning isn’t left to chance.
Since the early ’90s, we’ve built integrated learning opportunities into many of our curricula. Today we’re experimenting with other types of integrated-learning methods, including:
- Facilitators helping to run business meetings or “clinics” in which skills and strategies are intentionally applied to business problems
- Arranging yearlong organizationwide conversations on a topic or strategy, using webinars and social-media tools
- Setting up peer-to-peer coaching systems
- Equipping leaders to be true coaches and cultivators of learning on the job
What are you doing in your organization to “formalize” informal learning?
How often did participants check in and report on their progress (in the networked learning approach)? What was the pace, timing, and duration of this part of the solution?
Participants were not “required” to follow any interaction schedule, since learning in this way entails some desire on the part of the learner to pull information. We did provide them with some general guidelines and advice for scheduling their time, so that they would not find themselves rushing to complete weekly assignments and applications at the last minute.
Participants must receive quick responses to their discussion posts early in the learning. We set a guideline for the facilitator: Respond to posts daily by 8 P.M. (in the facilitator’s local time zone). We were able to tell how participants were progressing by monitoring the pace of the discussion. When some appeared to fall behind, we picked up the telephone or sent a private e-mail to check on their progress.
Is participation in the networking site (for example, blogging) a mandatory element of the networked learning program?
Yes. We do help people to get comfortable with participating in the networking site by making easy blogging/discussion assignments at the beginning of the learning stream and by providing tips and techniques for effectively using the tools.
How do companies reward business-related virtual learning at home?
This is a multifaceted question. Answers may be influenced by local labor laws or union regulations. Employees need to be given time to participate in virtual learning just as they are given time to participate in traditional classroom learning. Virtual learning time is significantly less, because the employee is not re-locating to a different city or even a training room across campus. Managers play an important role in rewarding learning, regardless of the environment, by building learning into performance-management processes, recognizing accomplishments, and supporting employees in taking time for learning.
A key for successful workplace learning is supervisor involvement. This often is a problem. What proven measures did you take in order to ensure supervisors’ active support?
Virtual classrooms provide unique opportunities to involve supervisors. Requiring them to serve as guest speakers or participate in key business discussions at key points in the learning is an effective technique. In the CWT example that Barb shared, the primary audience is managers and supervisors. We involved senior managers and directors in a steering committee in the design phase. The senior managers also led kickoff events for their teams, and many of them participated in the first session of each learning stream. As with all learning, manager support is critical; therefore, the supervisor’s manager must also support his or her engagement by tying it to key performance metrics.
I often wish that technology could provide a magic solution for this systemic problem. It continues to come back to “you get what you measure.” There is no better way to measure learning than to integrate it with performance management.
What percentage of the employees participated in the blog or discussion area? What is the breakout for each generational group?
One hundred percent of the employees participated in the blog/discussion, since it was designed into the approach as an assignment. We have not looked specifically at generational participation in blogs to this point, but you raise a very good question. The research on learning-approach preference indicates that, once people know how to connect (for example via chat, blog, or discussion thread), you can get them to engage if you provide enough value for them. My observation in the last year has been that it tends to depend more on participants’ general type (introvert/extrovert) and their comfort with technology than it does on generation. We will be doing more extensive research into this in the next 4 months, so keep checking back for new insights.
How much more time are facilitators spending on leading learning beyond the classroom than on leading traditional classroom training? Is it sustainable?
In the networked classroom (one that uses social media and virtual classroom tools) we have found that scheduling time is critical for both the facilitator and the participant. It helps to establish a rhythm, set expectations for response timing, and generally make sure that people don’t get overwhelmed by the interactivity.
In the course of a 4-week networked learning session (the equivalent of 2 days—or 16 hours—of traditional classroom session) we found that facilitators spent an average of 18 hours engaged with participants. Factor in travel time and overall facilitator time investment in learning beyond the classroom usually decreases.
The question of sustainability is interesting. Many universities offer distance learning with quite a lot of interaction between participants and educators, so I do believe ours is a sustainable model.
What metrics did you use to measure progress/success?
In the CWT case we described, we used post-session reviews to collect Level 1 (satisfaction) and Level II (knowledge) data. Level III (application) data was collected in debriefs of application assignments. We have not collected Level IV (ROI) results so far.
Contact. Connect. Share.