There has been much discussion by thought leaders about user-generated content in learning.
Many bloggers, including myself, have thrown in their two-cents’ worth.
Most make the same point: that tools like blogs, wikis, audio and video tools, RSS, and feedreaders make content creation and content publishing very easy…
…and thus, one-way learning (i.e., content provided by instructors and SMEs) will be more and more replaced by two-way learning in which the learners themselves are content producers and content sharers.
I am wondering, how is user-generated content in learning offerings really working so far?
I surveyed 79 learning professionals in end-user organizations last week and asked them. (They represented corporate, education, and nonprofit organizations, ranging in size from 100 to 50,000 employees).
Based on this small sample, the use of user-generated content in learning is still quite new.
Forty-four percent of the respondents do not have user-generated content in any offerings.
Thirty-eight percent have user-generated in 1-10% of their offerings.
I wonder how, in practical terms, user-generated content is actually being used in learning offerings?
Here are some things I would be curious about:
o Are learners creating content in text? Audio? Photos? Video?
o Are learners creating content individually (e.g., blogs) or collectively (e.g., wikis)?
o Is the content be moderated?
o Is the purpose actually to create content (for example, using user knowledge to create procedure manuals)?
o Or is the purpose more for the learners to have a way to express themselves on the topic? (Students have always written term papers in school, but I would say that the purpose hasn’t really been to create the content. Teachers grade the papers and file them.)
o Or some other purpose?
o Are the learners sharing their content only with fellow learners or with a larger community?
o Is any discussion board being considered “user-generated content”?
o In topics where accuracy matters, how is editing being handled?
I’d be glad to hear any thoughts on these questions — the practical issues of user-generated content in learning offerings.
Workplace Learning Today
Subscribe by Email
Follow Tom on Twitter
Connect on Facebook
Connect on LinkedIn
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
You ask if learners are creating content. In my estimation, users are creating content constantly, but rarely is it captured for the masses to search and find. Email is a great example. A TON of information is created, but rarely shared outside the email path.
The trick, then, is to figure out how to naturally and unobtrusively get the content beyond the personal interaction and to anyone who needs it at the time they need it so they can learn from it.
On the matter of editing: it is interesting to see that, especially on wikis, people naturally take on roles, one of those being editor. There are few who are truly great writers so we have to live with imperfections. This is a fact we are becoming more and more used to. Just take a look at the popularity and video quality of YouTube.
On the matter of moderation: It depends on the purpose of the moderation. In some instances no moderation is needed. In others, you better be checking the information being shared. But, again, naturally, the silent majority becomes much more vocal in these formats. If someone goes off the beaten path, others will ‘right’ the view and bring it back in line.
One last thought. You mention “user-generated content in learning offerings” as if it is a piece of the offering. I believe user-generated content creates learning by itself and can be considered a different mode of learning rather than the need to try to fit and integrated it into current offerings. It should be used in conjunction but should not be used only when it can fit into current formats/modes of learning.
Kevin, many thanks for your comment. Interesting point about “learning offerings.” Here are some ramblings:
What I really meant by “user-generated content in learning offerings” is, plainly put: Are training departments really suggesting blogs, wikis, podcasting, etc., as solutions to training requests?
I raise the question because a lot of discussion about user-generated content is being aimed directly at learning professionals (people in training departments).
The implication of course is, “You should be designing learning solutions that include blogs, wikis, etc.”
But I think for user-generated content to really be adopted by people who work in training departments, there has to be an instructional-design logic that goes from the request, “We need training,” to an answer like, “You should capture the information in a wiki that people can search when they need it.”
I’m curious to know whether instructional design is starting to point to blogs and wikis as actual learning solutions (suggested by training departments) and, if so, what that looks like.
This is a tough one to answer for a couple reasons:
1) Learning solutions in the past have been seen more as events. One goes to a training or studies a manual or participates in a webinar. It is at this point in time that we learn.
Using these new learning solutions allows learning to be an ongoing activity instead of an event. Sure this will replace some traditional training activities for example, but even more it will supplement them.
2) This type of learning starts spilling into other areas of the corporate world: marketing, internal corporate communications, project management, etc. This is because this methodology can be used not only by the learning function, but by any other as well – but while they are using it they are learning!
There is a lot of talk about the learning professional stretching the bounds of their influence and skills into other areas of the corporate world. This will continue that theme.
Put these two pieces together and adoption doesn’t happen the same way E-Learning adoption happened. The solution is much more broad and is more of a culture change than simply adding another training solution.
I am building a ‘learning solution’ using this new methodology. People are asking why I, a learning professional, am involved. They don’t see (yet) the connection between all this technical, cultural and process stuff and the ‘training’ that they feel I should be doing. I feel like it is creating a learning solution coming in the back door. For example, when you search Google you don’t think of it as a learning activity, but it is.
The implementation of this, from what I can tell, will be very different than the implementation that we have been used to.
Kevin, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head!
o User-generated content has implications for many areas, such as marketing, corporate communication, human resources, and so forth (not just the ‘training department’).
o User-generated content may not necessarily “feel like” a formal learning activity. (As you say, this is similar to other information-tool activities, like Google searching, that don’t “feel like” learning activities, but are.)
o You make a good point that an organization may not expect ‘training people’ to be involved in these new tools that don’t look like traditional training (or even like traditional e-learning).
o I think it’s important for us to publicize examples of how ‘training people’ are using user-generated content (and other new tools) as part of learning solutions.
I agree. Publishing this information is key. The publicizing piece, however, is where my difficulty lies. I am doing what I can to help other learning professionals learn about this: I have created a “Learning 2.0 – Corporate” group on Facebook and http://www.learning20.ning.com to try to get people together together and share examples. They are both new and fairly small right now. http://www.engagedlearning.net is my blog and I am a guest blogger on astdcascadia.org. I will be doing a presentation to the local chapter of ASTD next week.
How else, as a learning community, can we do this publicizing? And then how do we help people to share their experiences?
Any thoughts would be appreciated.