'Learning 2.0' is a buzzword that many foodservice professionals are at least vaguely familiar with, but what does it actually mean for the training profession?
And what is the business value of learning in the workplace through collaborative technologies? Fundamentally, we must consider how people learn and how people forget and our business goal should be to maximize learning and minimize forgetting in the performance context of the foodservice workplace.
Much of what I know about Learning 2.0 (and shared during two breakout sessions at the 2008 CHART Winter Conference) is the product of regularly attending and actively participating in other conferences such as ASTD's TechKnowledge(R) Conference & Exposition and the eLearning Guild's Annual Gathering. I invite CHART members to attend one or both of these conferences since they offer a valuable opportunity for you to learn about enabling technologies like blogs (and micro-blogs), wikis, Podcasting/vodcasting, social media, immersive learning simulations and virtual worlds (Second Life, Active Worlds, ProtoSphere, etc.)
So, let's consider how we arrived at the concept of 'Learning 2.0'. The '2.0' suggests something preceded it and I contend that even before 'Learning 1.0' there was 'Learning 0.0'.
LEARNING 0.0
'Learning 0.0' represents the fundamentals of how we learn (and how we forget). The key premise is that to be effective, a 'learning intervention' (such as a training session for hotel or restaurant employees) must support the human learning system, not work against it. Additionally, a learning intervention should account for the preparedness of the learners and adapt to their needs and interests relative to their work responsibilities in the foodservice operation.
This concept of the human learning system was developed by Will Thalheimer, Ph.D., president of Work-Learning Research (based in Somerville, MA) Dr. Thalheimer identifies nine attributes of the human learning system:
1. Attention wanders
2. We don't absorb everything
3. We develop misconceptions
4. We forget learned information
5. We have a hard time remembering what is retrieved
6. We have limited working memory capacity
7. Our thoughts and actions are reactive
8. We are overly optimistic about remembering
9. We have minimal retrieval routes
Since we temporarily forget much of what we learn, we need triggers (or 'cues') to help us remember those facts, concepts and principles. We understand this from the experience of living and the notion of 'use it or lose it' which applies to so many cognitive and physical skills. So, why do we invest significant amounts of time, money and resources in training (and re-training) the members of our workforce? The answer: we desire improved performance, but are we getting the level of performance that we want for better business results (for example, a superior level of sanitation in the food prep area of a hotel's restaurant)? It is likely that we are not achieving the desired level of performance because we, as trainers, may not be presenting workplace learning interventions in ways that account for the attributes (listed above) in the human learning system.
For example, imagine that you attend a CHART Conference and participate in three different breakout sessions in two days. Two weeks later, how much of the presentation content will you actually remember? If those breakout sessions are pertinent to your role in managing a hotel or restaurant operation, what you remember (and more importantly, don't remember) influences your overall job performance. Two weeks after the CHART Conference, the amount of knowledge you retain diminishes because you may not have effective cues for retrieving what you learned. Cues enable you to rehearse what you've learned by repeatedly retrieving information, resulting in long-term memories that you can apply on-the-job.
We want all foodservice workers to associate 'clean hands' with 'safe food.' So we ask them rehearse the statement like: 'Clean hands help ensure food safety' in their minds until they have encoded that information in memory. Then, when we want them to remember to wash their hands, a visual cue like a poster about washing hands, or a verbal cue from a manager helps them access the memory of clean hands associated to safe food. The cue triggers the recall from long term memory.
Now, let's return to our CHART Conference example. The key to improved performance is retrieving what we learned at the Conference in our own workplace situation. If you wish to maximize your ability to remember what you learned in those breakout sessions, you should continue conversing with other Conference attendees (in-person, on the phone or online) after the event ends. Those conversations and idea exchanges will help you retrieve some of the facts, concepts and principles that were presented and then you can apply that knowledge to your work. The result: your sense of accomplish improves, your performance improves and your employer earns a higher ROI on the money spent for you to attend the conference. Everybody wins.
To enhance the process of recall and application of knowledge, we must change the 'frame' of the learning intervention. Instead of an abrupt start and finish to a scheduled learning event, we can extend it by encouraging conversations among the participants before and afterward. For example, if we develop the agenda and content for a company-sponsored training session for a group of hotel or restaurant managers, we can pose pre-questions that the participants must answer prior to the event. A simple question-answer dialogue like this helps prepare learners before they enter the training room (which may be on-site or online).
This solution can be applied to training hotel and restaurant employees, as well. Give them questions to think about before the pre-service training session begins. Then, give them cues during the training that help them remember what they learned in pre-training. After training, give them additional opportunities to discuss with their colleagues what was presented so they can retrieve what they encoded, which reinforces what they learned. Finally, include a follow-up survey asking them to list the key learning points and how they will apply them to improve their personal performance on-the-job.
Clearly, conversations (written, spoken or sign language) are fundamental to learning. To quote Jay Cross, one of the most respected champions of informal learning: 'Conversations are the stem cells of innovation.'
LEARNING 1.0
Marc J. Rosenberg, Ph.D., president of New Jersey-based Marc Rosenberg & Associates and author of 'E-Learning' and, 'Beyond E-Learning', consults with organizations that wish to use technology to enable learning in the workplace. According to Dr. Rosenberg, technology helps build a learning culture by:
1. Keeping everyone informed and involved
2. Enabling everyone to learn faster
3. Enabling personalization
4. Supporting knowledge sharing
5. Creating institutional memory
But he emphasizes that technology by itself is not enough to achieve desired workplace learning goals. Technology is a tool, not a strategy, it cannot by itself build a learning culture and if used poorly, it can actually defeat a learning culture. Training professionals must consider the needs of the learner (who, in the workplace really is a 'performer') and strategically apply technology solutions that fulfill the overall business goal of performance improvement in the workforce.
With the old paradigm of 'Learning 1.0' the instructor (or online course) is viewed as the center of all knowledge. The premise is that everyone learns the same way. Old-paradigm trainers promote the corporate training room as the place from which all knowledge disseminates and it is viewed as the preferred context for learning in the workplace. In the new paradigm, the employee/learner is viewed as a knowledge-seeker with rapidly changing learning needs and time frames. Online services (for example, instant messaging and searchable knowledge bases) enable improved access to the total body of knowledge and performance resources. And, learning in the workplace, at the moment of need and the performance context, becomes essential.
Implementing the new paradigm requires trainers to discard their '1.0' (course-centric) view of learning where the information is distributed solely in structured, scheduled courses. For example, if a bartender-in-training wishes to learn about best practices in responsible alcohol service and apply them on-the-job, the organization should offer multiple ways for that person to access the information they need (through access to subject matter experts, online communities, live events, information repositories and yes, courses). Fundamentally, this new paradigm offers different perspectives-tailored to different levels of learner mastery-and more opportunities to converse about the subject matter, thereby enriching the learning experience and improving the likelihood of correct recall and application of knowledge during the bartender's work shifts.
Let's consider this example of the new paradigm of learning in practice. A newly-hired server at a multi-unit casual restaurant learns that a just-seated guest is allergic to peanuts. Since the kitchen staff is very busy preparing orders from other guests, the server walks a few steps to the POS terminal in the server station and with a couple of button clicks on the touchscreen, quickly confirms which menu items are prepared with peanuts, peanut oil or other nuts and then guides the guest to other menu selections that are free of nut allergens. The allergen information is available in a blog that is frequently updated by culinary staff at the corporate headquarters. In this scenario, the server is empowered to find and retrieve vitally important information at the moment of need and promptly act to protect the health of the guest. In this example, a course on food allergens (whether it be delivered in a training room or online) would not work well for either the server or the guest!
LEARNING 2.0
The new paradigm or current 'version' of learning is enabled by Web 2.0 technologies such as messaging, collaboration and most importantly, social media which enables sharing of user-generated content (stories, photos, videos, Podcasts, etc.). The key difference is that content is not developed, controlled and distributed solely by a trainer/expert to an audience of trainees/novices. Learning 2.0 can be synchronous (same time) or asynchronous (on-demand at any time) in its presentation, sharing and 'remixing' (also known as a 'mash-up') of information. To quote learning strategist Lance Dublin, it's personalized 'learning at the speed-of-work'.
The emergence of social media platforms has dramatically accelerated informal learning in the workplace because the technology allows people in need of information to rapidly locate and connect with other people who have that information. In effect, knowledge-transfer has become almost entirely self-driven and spontaneous rather than controlled by an appointed subject matter expert who dictates the schedule of formal learning interventions.
We are inherently social beings and social media platforms allow us to connect with others who share our interests. For personal interests, people can learn informally from others in myspace, Facebook, Friendster, Orkut and other online networks. For business interests, several choices are available including: LinkedIn, Plaxo, Ryze and Xing, with many new industry-specific vertical networks emerging every month. FohBoh, the largest and fastest growing business network dedicated to the restaurant industry, has attracted nearly 10,000 members less than a year after it launched in January 2008.
If conversations are, indeed, the stem cells for innovation, then social media platforms are the incubators. Nearly all social media platforms provide tools for users to share their ideas and opinions through blogs (a contraction of the term 'Web log'), which is like having your own newspaper or magazine column, except there is no editor you must answer to. All blogs enable the writer to control whether or not readers can post comments and through that online conversation, people read, write, reflect and learn. Other tools for social collaboration include wikis (a Hawaiian word meaning 'quick') which enable multiple people to rapidly write, revise and develop documents and definitions of topics that have meaning to them. The most important example of a wiki is Wikipedia, a Web-based encyclopedia of free content developed by over 75,000 contributors world-wide since 2001. Wikipedia is the ultimate demonstration of collaborative learning where 'none of us know as much as all of us.'
Learning 2.0 enhances the traditional course-centric Learning 1.0 by offering multiple ways for learners/performers to access information and knowledge on-demand. Online courses can include links to social media groups, wikis and blogs. Course curriculums can include embedded videos, Podcasts and blogs to enrich the content and learning experience. Blogs can link to learning objects, lessons and courses. Wikis may include embedded audio or video.
Now that we have a better understanding of the human learning system and the strategies and technological tools to enhance learning in the workplace, we must devote some effort to improving the evaluation of our learning interventions. Clearly, the technologies of Learning 2.0 enable us to deliver and share richer, more authentic content with our audience. More importantly, those same technologies represent new channels for feedback and we should inviting all of our learners/performers to share their ideas, insights and constructive critiques about how to solve problems and improve efficiency in our hotel and restaurant operations. Then we need to recognize and reward the people who share their ideas. Doing so will reinforce the feedback loops in our workplace, ensuring a continuous flow of ideas and insights that likely have tangible business value.
In this important election year, Learning 2.0 is more pertinent than ever because it represents the democratization of learning. The technologies briefly described in this article enable us to seize control of our own personal learning destiny. We are in the midst of an important transition from structured, formal learning to spontaneous, on-demand, informal learning. Compared to the course-centric Learning 1.0 paradigm, Learning 2.0 offers several important values to the learner/performer and their organization:
1. Cues for retrieval and rehearsal
2. It's easily embedded into our workflow
3. It's adaptable to all levels of mastery
4. It's knowledge-centric, learning-by-creating
5. It's highly personalized: we choose the content
6. It leverages the 'wisdom of crowds'
7. It increases the number of feedback channels
Where do we go from here? It appears likely that 'Learning 3.0' will introduce immersive simulations and collaborative virtual worlds to workplace learning... but I'll save that topic for the next article.
Logos, product and company names mentioned are the property of their respective owners.
