Quick reminder to myself, on the subject of successful innovation:
Doug Hall, who is an engineer by profession, and began career in product development in Procter and Gamble, has devoted himself since leaving P&G to the study of innovation. He works with many of the most innovative companies, such as Disney and Nike and has developed a methodology around innovation. One of his discoveries has been the features that are common to successful innovative products.
He has found three characteristics of a product that are essential for success;
1. Overt benefits of the product - what does the customer get that matters to them?
2. Reason to believe - how can you prove that your promise for the product will deliver? (guarantees, testimonials, trials periods all help here)
3. Dramatic difference - how is your product in a different league to others with which it might be compared? Better still, if it creates a new league for itself.
All thee features above aree essential for a new product to be successful, but by far the most important is number 3 - dramatic difference!
Reference
Hall, D, (2001), Jump Start Your Business Brain, Betterway Books, Cincinnati OH
Saturday 26 February 2011
Friday 25 February 2011
The OU's learning about elearning?
Having been a participant in 2003 in what felt like a very pioneering OU MA module H802: Application of Information Technology, followed closely by H804 in 2004, I can see changes that the OU has introduced to H808 (2009) and H807 (2011) which I am sure are not an accident. When it comes to elearning design, there are undoubtedly lessons for me here. I'll think of more as H807 progresses, but here are a few to get started.
One very important difference between my latest 2 modules and my first 2 is that the integration of VLE activity is now much more important. In H802 and H804, points were awarded for levels of participation, but the percentage that was awarded was relatively insignificant - from memory on H804 the amound was around 7% (in other words, not enough to change behaviour!). In both H808 and H807, at least one TMA asks you to document an online project/activity, and both programmes require you to give account of your personal contribution to the project, or other discussions. This seems to me a very significant shift in design, to encourage active participation in at least some of the online activity.
Another noticeable, although understandable, difference is that there is less 'hand-holding' around the online organisation and interactions. I'm sure this is due to the level of sophistication around electronic communications that now exists now in comparison with 8 years ago.
Thirdly, I noticed when our H807 module was launched that we had a much larger group - 21 - than was true on either H802 or H804. These earlier courses had 12-15 students at the start. However, I notice that by the end of week three, there are 10 active participants, other than myself. I know one (Claire) dropped out very early on, but the others, so far, have not been particularly active. Learner engagement has been a difficult issue in the experiments that I have undertaken around using elearning. Maybe the OU has just concluded there will always be a level of fallout, so they take account of that from the start?!
Finally, the use of references from other participants on the module was always valued, but on H807 there are explicit demands to use comments from other students in TMAs.
All very interesting - as the module develops, I am hoping to spot other elearning design lessons. We are, after all, being trained by one of the world's most experienced Distance Learning Organisations;-)
One very important difference between my latest 2 modules and my first 2 is that the integration of VLE activity is now much more important. In H802 and H804, points were awarded for levels of participation, but the percentage that was awarded was relatively insignificant - from memory on H804 the amound was around 7% (in other words, not enough to change behaviour!). In both H808 and H807, at least one TMA asks you to document an online project/activity, and both programmes require you to give account of your personal contribution to the project, or other discussions. This seems to me a very significant shift in design, to encourage active participation in at least some of the online activity.
Another noticeable, although understandable, difference is that there is less 'hand-holding' around the online organisation and interactions. I'm sure this is due to the level of sophistication around electronic communications that now exists now in comparison with 8 years ago.
Thirdly, I noticed when our H807 module was launched that we had a much larger group - 21 - than was true on either H802 or H804. These earlier courses had 12-15 students at the start. However, I notice that by the end of week three, there are 10 active participants, other than myself. I know one (Claire) dropped out very early on, but the others, so far, have not been particularly active. Learner engagement has been a difficult issue in the experiments that I have undertaken around using elearning. Maybe the OU has just concluded there will always be a level of fallout, so they take account of that from the start?!
Finally, the use of references from other participants on the module was always valued, but on H807 there are explicit demands to use comments from other students in TMAs.
All very interesting - as the module develops, I am hoping to spot other elearning design lessons. We are, after all, being trained by one of the world's most experienced Distance Learning Organisations;-)
Thursday 24 February 2011
Criteria for Deciding on which Innovation to Fund: Week 3, Activity 4
I can understand that the Kaye & Hawkridge criteria helped them to select the case studies for a book on innovative elearning examples. However, in the innovation life cycle, the end product may be a way off yet. Johnson (2010) explains that the process of innovating is a continuous process of working in the "adjacent possible" - ideas that occur to you that are stimulated by the way things are now. Later he says "we take the ideas we've inherited or that we've stumbled across and we jigger them together into some new shape" (p 30) I would therefore be most concerned to make sure that potentially significant innovations that are not developed enough yet were not rejected too early.
The three criteria I am going to nominate are from the perspective of a project manager (like myself) in a private sector training company which is looking to make elearning a channel through which to develop new routes to market. At the moment this is relatively unchartered territory,
Cost will always be an issue and if the project is too expensive, it will not be afforded. Other criteria might help us work out which cost we should do well to find ways to afford. After all if the top line revenue generated by the programme can be increased, the cost becomes less of an issue.
The three criteria I would therefore nominate are:
1. New routes to market: is the programme appealing to and accessible by a wide audience of clients that would be new to our business? This might be judged by the number of students attracted so far, and the extent to which they are a new type of customer for the business.
2. Engagement of students: Our business prides itself on the impact that its f2f training interventions has on the performance of students back in the workplace. The degree of participation and excitement which it is possible to generate on and offline should therefore be a second criterion for deciding on the most worthy programme. Online participation monitoring and feedback from the workplace about any changes in behaviour/performance of students are at least two ways in which this criterion could be measured.
3. Customer Service: being able to monitor students progress, and then to personalise the programme to meet their learning needs and the needs that their business has of them will be an important way to differentiate our service in the market place. Programmes and technology that enable us to connect intimately with the learning progress of our students will therefore, again, be a differentiator in the market for the innovative programme. Activity in a VLE, and student responsiveness to new input could be methods of measuring against this criterion.
Madeleine
Reference:
Johnson, S (2010), Where Good Ideas Come From - A Natural History of Innovation, Allen Lane, London
The three criteria I am going to nominate are from the perspective of a project manager (like myself) in a private sector training company which is looking to make elearning a channel through which to develop new routes to market. At the moment this is relatively unchartered territory,
Cost will always be an issue and if the project is too expensive, it will not be afforded. Other criteria might help us work out which cost we should do well to find ways to afford. After all if the top line revenue generated by the programme can be increased, the cost becomes less of an issue.
The three criteria I would therefore nominate are:
1. New routes to market: is the programme appealing to and accessible by a wide audience of clients that would be new to our business? This might be judged by the number of students attracted so far, and the extent to which they are a new type of customer for the business.
2. Engagement of students: Our business prides itself on the impact that its f2f training interventions has on the performance of students back in the workplace. The degree of participation and excitement which it is possible to generate on and offline should therefore be a second criterion for deciding on the most worthy programme. Online participation monitoring and feedback from the workplace about any changes in behaviour/performance of students are at least two ways in which this criterion could be measured.
3. Customer Service: being able to monitor students progress, and then to personalise the programme to meet their learning needs and the needs that their business has of them will be an important way to differentiate our service in the market place. Programmes and technology that enable us to connect intimately with the learning progress of our students will therefore, again, be a differentiator in the market for the innovative programme. Activity in a VLE, and student responsiveness to new input could be methods of measuring against this criterion.
Madeleine
Reference:
Johnson, S (2010), Where Good Ideas Come From - A Natural History of Innovation, Allen Lane, London
Wednesday 23 February 2011
Innovators and the "Chasm"
Moore's chasm model highlights the gap that exists between those who invent new products and the rest. The chasm analogy that he uses paints a graphic picture of the distance.
In my experience, it is not just the gap between innovator and the rest that is the challenge in a new product introduction. It is the singlemindedness that an innovator often requires to drive his/her idea through to fruition. This determination can make the innovator resistant to input from others, and therein lies a major weakness. For ideas to be adopted by many, the reservations of others must be dealt with by reaching over the chasm and finding ways to bridge the gap.
As for whether the chasm theory that might be relevant to elearning innovation, the fact that this is a consumer marketing model is a weakness. The audience for elearning innovation is threefold; the student, the teacher and the investor/institution. I am not convinced that these three constituents all act as consumers in deciding whether to adopt an elearning innovation.
However, the notion of the need to bridge the gap between innovation and potential users is an important one, and finding sponsors/supporters is essential.
In my experience, it is not just the gap between innovator and the rest that is the challenge in a new product introduction. It is the singlemindedness that an innovator often requires to drive his/her idea through to fruition. This determination can make the innovator resistant to input from others, and therein lies a major weakness. For ideas to be adopted by many, the reservations of others must be dealt with by reaching over the chasm and finding ways to bridge the gap.
As for whether the chasm theory that might be relevant to elearning innovation, the fact that this is a consumer marketing model is a weakness. The audience for elearning innovation is threefold; the student, the teacher and the investor/institution. I am not convinced that these three constituents all act as consumers in deciding whether to adopt an elearning innovation.
However, the notion of the need to bridge the gap between innovation and potential users is an important one, and finding sponsors/supporters is essential.
Tuesday 22 February 2011
Will a potential Innovation Fly? H807 3:2
Here are some concepts that may be useful as I consider introducing innovations to our Excellence Distance Learning Programme.
Relative Advantage: What problem is it that the innovation is required to solve, and do colleagues share my view of what we are seeking to improve? Whatever innovation I recommend must be seen by others to offer a benefit commensurate with the effort that will be required.
Compatibility: This is likely to be a major factor for my very experienced colleagues when faced with an elearning innovation. Their sense of self is connected strongly with their face to face practice, and the online arena is an uncomfortable fit for them. I think it will be important to introduce changes progressively, enabling colleagues to embrace the changes, and edging them gradually towards less compatible innovations. (ref H807)
Complexity: This must be considered both for teachers and learners.New skills and difficult concepts must be accommodated. With a disparate group of learners such as ours, complexity must be kept to a minimum. For teachers, I must be aware of new skills and structures they might require in order to be enthusiastic participants.
Trialability: Any experiments must not disadvantage the learners as we develop the programme pedagogy of our Excellence Distance Learning programme. Our version of Trialability is Quick Prototyping, and taking bite sized chunks upon which to experiment gives us access to feedback from both teachers and learners.
Observability: This takes us right back to relative advantage. We are measuring the success of our online efforts based on the extent to which learners are able to take and use what they have learned with their clients. Our current design requires learners to demonstrate what they have learned with their first client, and so far, a small proportion have taken the plunge (3 out of 15). It occurs to me that this may be too big a jump from theory into practice, and we might benefit for designing in an earlier opportunity to observe learners' progress.
Ref:
Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th edn), New York, Simon and Schuster.
Relative Advantage: What problem is it that the innovation is required to solve, and do colleagues share my view of what we are seeking to improve? Whatever innovation I recommend must be seen by others to offer a benefit commensurate with the effort that will be required.
Compatibility: This is likely to be a major factor for my very experienced colleagues when faced with an elearning innovation. Their sense of self is connected strongly with their face to face practice, and the online arena is an uncomfortable fit for them. I think it will be important to introduce changes progressively, enabling colleagues to embrace the changes, and edging them gradually towards less compatible innovations. (ref H807)
Complexity: This must be considered both for teachers and learners.New skills and difficult concepts must be accommodated. With a disparate group of learners such as ours, complexity must be kept to a minimum. For teachers, I must be aware of new skills and structures they might require in order to be enthusiastic participants.
Trialability: Any experiments must not disadvantage the learners as we develop the programme pedagogy of our Excellence Distance Learning programme. Our version of Trialability is Quick Prototyping, and taking bite sized chunks upon which to experiment gives us access to feedback from both teachers and learners.
Observability: This takes us right back to relative advantage. We are measuring the success of our online efforts based on the extent to which learners are able to take and use what they have learned with their clients. Our current design requires learners to demonstrate what they have learned with their first client, and so far, a small proportion have taken the plunge (3 out of 15). It occurs to me that this may be too big a jump from theory into practice, and we might benefit for designing in an earlier opportunity to observe learners' progress.
Ref:
Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th edn), New York, Simon and Schuster.
Sunday 13 February 2011
Innovation Case Studies Block 1, Week 2.2
In this task, we are asked to study a number of case studies - too many to read them all;-) I have decided to choose cases that have some relevance to my work life.
- Bradford University Physiotherapy Course - a module that brings the user (customer in my parlance) to life, and helps with the transfer of learning. The case based scenario module incorporated media rich elements, to make them more emotionally engaging. The scenarios were used in a blended learning format, which encouraged problem solving debate on the cases. Student feedback shows they are engaging with the material.
- Derby University BA in Business Studies. This course has been transformed by being available fully online. This has attracted a more mature student, that is motivated to complete the course. As well as being available online, there is flexibility about when modules are taken, which means that a three year course can be completed in two years. Student enrollments and satisfaction levels have been on the increase. No particular evidence of any pedagogical innovations.
- Swansea University BA and MA in Archaeology. The use of a combination of images from archaeological site, with an accompanying podcast commentary by an academic who is working on/visitng the site has been very well received. The larger number of requests to attend field study summer schools is an example of this greater level of engagement. The evidence is that students find the input much more engaging. It is also an excellent option for students with mobility issues, who would otherwise miss out on the experience of 'visiting' a site. The staff have extended their use of podcasting technology to respond to specific student enquiries. These can then become a shared resource for the future.
- Warwick University Team Based approach to creating e-resources. This project focuses on the method used by the UReCA department which has over 1000 part time students and more than 80 modules. Previously course materials were provided in paper based form - e-resources were provided only by enthusiasts. By taking a collaborative, whole department approach to developing e-resources, the project raised the confidence and competence of staff to engage with elearning. As a result, not only has the student experience been enhanced, but staff development and collaboratiion continues on the VLE that was used for the collaborative project. Free lunches were used to reward, entice participation of reluctant members of staff!!
Week One Reflections H807
In Block One of H07, we were encouraged to share our initial thoughts about innovation in elearning. There were several strands of discussion, one of which was 'what is the definition of innovation?'
As for new uses of existing technology, that, in my mind is definitely an innovation. Technologies are simply tools, and finding new ways to use them opens up our understanding both of the subject being studied and of the potential of the tool. On both counts, that is definitely innovation.
If we take the definition of innovation as being to create new or to renew, the fact that an innovation is known to one group, does not mean in my mind that it is not innovative to a new audience. And as that new audience interacts with the innovation, they are very likely to create new meaning for themselves.
Without trying to summarise what I made of the activity, there are a number of points that have given me pause for thought.
The reference which Anita Houghton made to digital storytelling took me to an excellent paper. http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=120-1 The author, Nalin Sharda, pointed out that digital technologies give learners access to incredible amounts of information, but that making sense of that information was more tricky. Simply using the electronic media to present (even more!) information does not guarantee learning, never mind superior learning. His solution of engaging learners in reading and/or creating digital stories that force them to investigate a subject, and engage with the material is an innovation that enhances learning. Sounds good to me, although I'm sure it's harder than it sounds. Sharda sums up the pedagogical challenge of elearning as follows: "E-learning systems that just transform the traditional educational content (for example, books or lecture notes) into digital media are not successful; because, e-learning content that presents only facts and figures can loose the learners attention more easily than a good lecturer, who can capture the learners' attention with personal charisma. With e-learning content, the lack of personal connection (with a real teacher) can be overcome by creating "educational stories" that embody good storytelling principles."
Nicholas Keene drew attention to the difficulty of getting colleagues who were not schooled in ICT on board with innovations. "I could name 10 professors who were hostile the varying degrees to incorporating technolouyg more into their teaching forevery 1 who was in favour." Nicholas Keene Post 36 in reply to 23 • 11 February 2011, 00:10
It is very clear that there has been an explosion in the use of technology in learning in some academic circles. This however is not reflected in business. Although all my clients are electronically wired for producing their product/service, I don't see the innovation in using technology to the degree that seems present in some academic circles. Most business leaders see elearning as a way to deliver training more easily and many assume that this will mean it is cheaper. Grasping that elearning presents a pedagogical challenge is not on many non academic radars;-)
One last thought. Nicholas also found that "My first introduction to e-learning in an HE environment was chaotic. "Nicholas Keene Post 47 in reply to 44 • 13 February 2011, 01:39 This is a very typical response to a disruptive technology - we are suddenly presented with a brand new tool and working out how to use it is always going to be a bit messy.It would be nice to think that its introduction could be more orderly, but my sense is that the chaos creates learning, and it is only then that we can create order;-)
I think we all agreed that innovation was about creating something new, but there were several debates
- Does a new idea/application have to be successful to qualify as an innovation?
- Is a new use of a existing technology an innovation?
- Can an application that is new to a person (although not new to the world) be counted as innovation?
As for new uses of existing technology, that, in my mind is definitely an innovation. Technologies are simply tools, and finding new ways to use them opens up our understanding both of the subject being studied and of the potential of the tool. On both counts, that is definitely innovation.
If we take the definition of innovation as being to create new or to renew, the fact that an innovation is known to one group, does not mean in my mind that it is not innovative to a new audience. And as that new audience interacts with the innovation, they are very likely to create new meaning for themselves.
Without trying to summarise what I made of the activity, there are a number of points that have given me pause for thought.
The reference which Anita Houghton made to digital storytelling took me to an excellent paper. http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=120-1 The author, Nalin Sharda, pointed out that digital technologies give learners access to incredible amounts of information, but that making sense of that information was more tricky. Simply using the electronic media to present (even more!) information does not guarantee learning, never mind superior learning. His solution of engaging learners in reading and/or creating digital stories that force them to investigate a subject, and engage with the material is an innovation that enhances learning. Sounds good to me, although I'm sure it's harder than it sounds. Sharda sums up the pedagogical challenge of elearning as follows: "E-learning systems that just transform the traditional educational content (for example, books or lecture notes) into digital media are not successful; because, e-learning content that presents only facts and figures can loose the learners attention more easily than a good lecturer, who can capture the learners' attention with personal charisma. With e-learning content, the lack of personal connection (with a real teacher) can be overcome by creating "educational stories" that embody good storytelling principles."
Nicholas Keene drew attention to the difficulty of getting colleagues who were not schooled in ICT on board with innovations. "I could name 10 professors who were hostile the varying degrees to incorporating technolouyg more into their teaching forevery 1 who was in favour." Nicholas Keene Post 36 in reply to 23 • 11 February 2011, 00:10
It is very clear that there has been an explosion in the use of technology in learning in some academic circles. This however is not reflected in business. Although all my clients are electronically wired for producing their product/service, I don't see the innovation in using technology to the degree that seems present in some academic circles. Most business leaders see elearning as a way to deliver training more easily and many assume that this will mean it is cheaper. Grasping that elearning presents a pedagogical challenge is not on many non academic radars;-)
One last thought. Nicholas also found that "My first introduction to e-learning in an HE environment was chaotic. "Nicholas Keene Post 47 in reply to 44 • 13 February 2011, 01:39 This is a very typical response to a disruptive technology - we are suddenly presented with a brand new tool and working out how to use it is always going to be a bit messy.It would be nice to think that its introduction could be more orderly, but my sense is that the chaos creates learning, and it is only then that we can create order;-)
Thursday 10 February 2011
Innovation in Elearning - initial thoughts (Block 1:3)
The main issue that I see around the understanding of the definition of Innovation in Elearning is that much more emphasis is placed on innovation around the E than on innovation around the learning.
Technology is seen as the innovation - a new medium for delivery of content - and there is insufficient awareness of what it takes to learn via this medium. I am from a generation that has been brought up 'delivering' training and sees ICT as a way of delivering what they used to deliver in a face to face setting in a remote (and cheaper??) way.
Over the past 8 years, I have had a number of experimental forays into offering elearning modules, with varying degrees of success. In every case, the technology has proved somewhat of a distraction, and has delivered disappointing outcomes. My sense is that it is a mistake to focus too much on the innovative technology, and that instead, we must couple that with the learning dynamics we are seeking to create.
Technology is seen as the innovation - a new medium for delivery of content - and there is insufficient awareness of what it takes to learn via this medium. I am from a generation that has been brought up 'delivering' training and sees ICT as a way of delivering what they used to deliver in a face to face setting in a remote (and cheaper??) way.
Over the past 8 years, I have had a number of experimental forays into offering elearning modules, with varying degrees of success. In every case, the technology has proved somewhat of a distraction, and has delivered disappointing outcomes. My sense is that it is a mistake to focus too much on the innovative technology, and that instead, we must couple that with the learning dynamics we are seeking to create.
Saturday 5 February 2011
After the dust has settled...
Looking back on our second DL programme, I can see that some of the improvements I introduced following H808 had a positive impact in what I could see of the learning.
Getting the learners to keep their own 'blog' journal had some success - a couple did make several blog posts on their own site. But what did work was that I gave all participants permission to begin their own blog posts on our programme group blog. This was very useful, and was used by all participants, and certainly kept me focused on what was being learned, and what wasn't.
The experience of using Elluminate platform was mostly very good. It certainly has great technology features,which we made good use of; the chance to run an audio presentation and discussion, being able to show video clips, the whiteboard, and the instant message/chat function. Being able to record the whole presentation was also a great asset, as on a couple of occasions, participants were not able to attend in person.
Two observations on Ellluminate; one on the audio capability and another on the file sizes.
The audio capability can be problematic if people don't set up their computers so that the internal microphones are turned off. Even though we had an audio set up session ahead of the programme start, it seemed that some people's computers reverted to default settings, and they forgot how to reset them. Others joined in on each session from different computers, and were not aware of how to change settings on unfamiliar computers. Even quite experienced colleagues struggled to be able to make audio inputs on occasions.
Another problem occurred when we invited participants the option of sending in slides for a discussion session. A couple sent (what I discovered later were) very large files, and completely disrupted the smooth running of our session!!
Both of these situations can be planned for, and next time around, we'll be aware of good housekeeping in both areas.
The scripts from the first DL Programme were incredibly useful, and gave us a brilliant base from which to create new scripts for version 2. We continued the discipline of making new scripts, and were able to add the audio recordings of sessions to the record we kept of activities.
I will be incorporating further changes to DL Programme 3, which I hope to start before the end of March 2011. The main innovation I plan to introduce is to make use of the Blackboard learn coursesites, which will allow me to keep all of the resources, discussions and journaling in one place.
One final point of disappointment. Although I feel we did a better educational job on DL Programme No 2 than on No 1, our conversion of learners into active users of our audit product, was no better. Only one of the 7 participants has gone on to conduct their first audit with clients of their own. What I am not sure about is whether the issue our participants are dealing with is a market in which their customers are very reluctant to commit to the cost of the audit. I was also rather disappointed with the extent to which the one that did use the audit was able to articulate her learning in analysing her audit results - albeit there was a gap of over three months between the course finishing and her looking at her results.
The disappointing outcome is definitely on my H807 agenda. The way I see it at the moment is that I will use the 'articulating the model' module as the subject of my H807 Examinable component. But I am sure the whole of H807 will give me food for thought on how to improve the impact of this DL Programme.
Getting the learners to keep their own 'blog' journal had some success - a couple did make several blog posts on their own site. But what did work was that I gave all participants permission to begin their own blog posts on our programme group blog. This was very useful, and was used by all participants, and certainly kept me focused on what was being learned, and what wasn't.
The experience of using Elluminate platform was mostly very good. It certainly has great technology features,which we made good use of; the chance to run an audio presentation and discussion, being able to show video clips, the whiteboard, and the instant message/chat function. Being able to record the whole presentation was also a great asset, as on a couple of occasions, participants were not able to attend in person.
Two observations on Ellluminate; one on the audio capability and another on the file sizes.
The audio capability can be problematic if people don't set up their computers so that the internal microphones are turned off. Even though we had an audio set up session ahead of the programme start, it seemed that some people's computers reverted to default settings, and they forgot how to reset them. Others joined in on each session from different computers, and were not aware of how to change settings on unfamiliar computers. Even quite experienced colleagues struggled to be able to make audio inputs on occasions.
Another problem occurred when we invited participants the option of sending in slides for a discussion session. A couple sent (what I discovered later were) very large files, and completely disrupted the smooth running of our session!!
Both of these situations can be planned for, and next time around, we'll be aware of good housekeeping in both areas.
The scripts from the first DL Programme were incredibly useful, and gave us a brilliant base from which to create new scripts for version 2. We continued the discipline of making new scripts, and were able to add the audio recordings of sessions to the record we kept of activities.
I will be incorporating further changes to DL Programme 3, which I hope to start before the end of March 2011. The main innovation I plan to introduce is to make use of the Blackboard learn coursesites, which will allow me to keep all of the resources, discussions and journaling in one place.
One final point of disappointment. Although I feel we did a better educational job on DL Programme No 2 than on No 1, our conversion of learners into active users of our audit product, was no better. Only one of the 7 participants has gone on to conduct their first audit with clients of their own. What I am not sure about is whether the issue our participants are dealing with is a market in which their customers are very reluctant to commit to the cost of the audit. I was also rather disappointed with the extent to which the one that did use the audit was able to articulate her learning in analysing her audit results - albeit there was a gap of over three months between the course finishing and her looking at her results.
The disappointing outcome is definitely on my H807 agenda. The way I see it at the moment is that I will use the 'articulating the model' module as the subject of my H807 Examinable component. But I am sure the whole of H807 will give me food for thought on how to improve the impact of this DL Programme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
