My colleague Janet Clarey wrote a great post on edupunk.
As a side note to Janet’s post, I’m starting to believe that, on learning-technology issues, corporate training and higher education can’t be lumped together at all.
O To the point where corporate-training people just shouldn’t use the syllable “edu,” as in edupunk or edublogger.
O Yes, both corporate trainers and professors absolutely have to address the implications and opportunities of Web 2.
But the contexts and cultures of corporate training and higher education are so vastly different.
Here are some ways they differ. These are generalizations (but exceptions probably only prove the rule):
1. LMSs in corporations, with asynchronous courses, learning paths and so forth, are very different from Course Management Systems in higher education. Corporations don’t use Blackboard.
2. Corporate trainers have to be concerned about content security. Coca-Cola doesn’t want Pepsi to know its training content. It’s tough to make the case that a closed network is draconian in corporate training.
3. Higher education has grades, credit hours, required courses, graduation requirements, etc. Professors are used to control. But that kind of control rarely exists in corporate training.
4. “Pouring content into someone’s head” is a repellent image in higher education. But corporate trainers do exactly that, much of the time: they usually need to get learners to learn one or more of four P’s (policies, processes, practices, and products).
5. Corporate trainers create (or buy) content from scratch (especially in asynchronous e-learning). Professors create lectures and handouts, but they generally don’t build content from scratch. The readings are the fundamental content of a college course. Professors aren’t content authors the way corporate trainers are.
6. Adult learning theory — the idea that adult learners shouldn’t be embarrassed or given irrelevant content — is followed in corporate training but not in higher education. Forty-year-olds in college or graduate courses are pressured with grades and flooded with content just like teenage learners.
7. Corporate-learning content is supposed to be engaging. But college content is supposed to be rigorous; engaging is a bonus. Suggesting to a professor that his or her course content should be appealing to students is an insult.
8. An online college course is typically reading a textbook and having online discussions. That would be laughable in corporate training. Corporate learners don’t read textbooks.
9. Professors have academic freedom. By and large, they choose their own course content and teaching method. But corporate trainers don’t. Corporate trainers live by proposals, permissions, and approvals.
10. Corporate learners complain publicly. But college learners rarely complain. Enduring courses is part of being a college student.
I think some learning-technology discussions get bogged down because Person A is thinking about an online college philosophy course on Blackboard, while Person B is thinking about a corporate sales training course on SumTotal.
These are really different things.
Workplace Learning Today
Subscribe by Email
Follow Tom on Twitter
Connect on Facebook
Connect on LinkedIn
{ 1 trackback }
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Great post Tom and thanks for throwing out the lifeline. (I was picked up on an blog for attacking ideology and started to wish I hadn’t joined the conversation at all) I ‘do’ edupunk daily and have been for sometime but don’t think commercial solutions in corporate environments are bunk. (edubunk?)
I’m was trying to say you can be edupunk (agree with you on the edu prefix BTW) in a corporate environment and your LMS is not evil. Many systems are moving to mashups (Google, Moodle, etc.) and facilitating the creation of environments where learners control their learning, albeit in a closed environment. It doesn’t mean they are not gaining the same value. Proprietary, closed, commercially-based solutions are a reality and will be reality for a long time. What is the alternative in the mind of the purist? Nothing? Fully open, fun free and naked in the wind…or nothing? I choose to walk the talk and if that’s viewed as an attack on ideology I say screw it. Because nothing is the alternative if you stay with that approach. And that’s not edupunk.
Ya know, it’s a struggle this higher ed/corporate training contrast. What I’ve found troubling in the research area is the need to rely on the research done at the higher ed level because it’s all there is when it comes to some of the newer training solutions and their effectiveness. Corporate IDs just don’t have time or resources to produce multiple versions of things to compare and don’t have the captive audience of the university population.
I don’t think there’s ever been a consistent label for corporate training. What should it be?
Great post, Tom–I agree that there are a lot of differences between the two groups that can create some misunderstandings and clashes and your list feels right on to me. What I wonder is if/how we could capitalize on and learn from these differences. We certainly have enough similarities and linkages between the two groups–are there ways that we could do a better job of building off of those to create some new and interesting synergies and ideas for how to use technology in each of the two realms? A mash-up, if you will.
And @Janet–I haven’t seen a good catchy label for corporate training like “edu-blogging.” I’d love to see one, though, for those times when we want to differentiate.
Hi Michele, thanks for your comment and for your kind words on your own blog.
Regarding building off the differences and creating synergies, two things come to my mind.
1. In our blogosphere discussions about learning technology all of us can probably do a better job of stating the learning realm (corporate training, higher ed, or K-12) that we’re speaking from or about.
Let’s say Person A blogs that she is trying out holding some classes in Second Life. And Person B comments, “But is Second Life really private enough?” The ensuing discussion will be a lot clearer if we know that Person A is a professor and Person B is a corporate trainer.
Similarly, if Person C sees a lot of potential in using a wiki and Person D is concerned about inaccuracies, it helps if we know that Person C is thinking of a college class of 15 students and Person D is thinking about hundreds or thousands of corporate people being exposed to an error in a wiki.
2. I think a unifying phenomenon is that corporate and higher ed are being turned topsy-turvy by Web 2.0. What happens to the standard two-day corporate workshop in the age of Web 2.0? And what happens to the standard college course in the age of Web 2.0? The corporate trainer and the college professor both used to be the ‘keepers of the content.’ Now what?
So both are experiencing the Web 2.0 tidal wave.
Hi Tom,
An stimulating post. I have been in both higher education and corporate training. What I found fascinating is that corporate training is geared towards customers’ needs and interests. To some extent, private corporate trainers compete in order to get businesses from corporations. The aresults are: customised training based on the corporate needs. However, when compared with higher education, the emphasis would likely be what the standards required, what research that has been done etc. It seems the needs of the institution – to become the world class institution in academic or theoretical breakthroughs are more important. So, it seems that education and training are totally different in that context. Is it? As shown in you photo, is it a measure of apple against orange? And that apples (academic excellence and research symbolised by A) are more highly valued in education than oranges (corporations success symbolised by Outstanding performance in business and training).
How about collaboration and cooperation of the corporate trainers? And collaboration with the Higher Education? Do you see any possibilities via community of practice or networking approach?
John
Hello John. Yes, I would agree that, generally speaking, in higher education professors are in a position of power over the students and don’t necessarily really see the students as customers. The students generally must conform to the content and delivery.
In corporate training, trainers are providing a service to employees and, generally speaking, must see the employees more as customers. The content and delivery typically must conform more to the needs of the employees. If a course feels boring or irrelevant or too demanding, employees will complain.
I do think that higher education and corporate training can collaborate and network around the use of technology in teaching/training. For example, how are each using podcasting, video, wikis, social networking, etc., etc.?
Hello Tom,
Great to learn your views. I am thinking about ways to bridge higher education and corporate training, and the collaboration that could be established. One initiative is to start exploring applied connectivism (or any related open learning/course, or higher education and corporate training etc.), where ideas and concepts are collected in repositories such as wiki,ning or edublogs, and research, and application on podcasting, video, wikis, social networking etc are further explored through forum or social network discussion.
This requires strong “ties” and leadership to start with. Would you be interested in such initiative? Please feel free to visit http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com or my email and comment. You are welcome to suggest any ties or colleagues who might be interested.
Renewed thanks for your stimulating insights.
You could also visit my other blog: http://logisticsandwarehousing.blogspot.com for my brief background.
Cheers.