Week 3: Selecting Distance Learning Technologies

First and foremost, here is the example I chose to discuss in this posting:

Example 1: Collaborative Training Environment


A new automated staff information system was recently purchased by a major corporation and needs to be implemented in six regional offices. Unfortunately, the staff is located throughout all the different offices and cannot meet at the same time or in the same location. As an instructional designer for the corporation, you have been charged with implementing a training workshop for these offices. As part of the training, you were advised how imperative it is that the staff members share information, in the form of screen captures and documents, and participate in ongoing collaboration.

It's a fairly well known fact that I am not only a student at Walden but an employee as well.  Walden's structure is much like the structure of the example above, in that there are multiple sites scattered all across the country.  There are enrollment advisors in all sites, in all time zones, and we often need to learn similar material at different times.  While the collaboration of our trainings doesn't match well to the example, I think the Walden model, properly modified, would serve well to act as a template for the development of the training workshop for the hypothetical company.
 
Since the staff of the hypothetical company cannot meet at the same time at the same location, it would seem that an asynchronous training platform would be a good fit for this workshop.  That way, staff can come and go to and from the workshop on their schedules.  However, the corporation has also made very clear to me as the instructional designer that collaboration between staff members is essential, that information sharing is crucial, and that this collaboration be on-going.  These requirements, to me, scream Web 2.0, and the employment of such technologies would serve the corporation well.  "In the early 2000s, a new generation of web applications emerged, tools that are highly participatory and promote collaboration, networking, sharing, and the widespread generation of content (Simonson et al., pg. 244, 2009)."  According to that definition, Web 2.0 technologies provide everything I need.  But which technology would be the best fit?  For my initial design, I will choose the wiki.
 
"A wiki is an online writing space designed to be created and edited by groups of persons" and "can be an excellent tool for collaborative online writing assignments and group activities compiling information in a single online source (Simonson et al., pg. 245, 2009)."  I've had previous experience with wikis in the program here at Walden, and I've found them to be terrifically valuable platforms for document sharing and collaborative document editing.  Many people can work with the same documents, edit them, and then post the edited documents to the wiki for further review.  This type of platform should be a great fit for a staff information system.  As staff rosters change, posted listings can be easily edited to reflect the new staff rosters.  If new information needs to be shared with all staff, the documents can be posted to the wiki to be accessed by all.  There are also many free wiki sites available, so the wiki would seem to be a cheap way to ensure staff collaboration across all sites.
 
In addition to the wiki itself, training would need to be designed and implemented to teach the staff of the corporation how to use a wiki.  A simple interactive wiki presentation could be built using Adobe Captivate (or MS PowerPoint) defining a wiki, explaining the beneficial uses of a wiki, and allowing learners to experience a wiki first-hand.  Then, assuming there are trainers located at each corporate site (like Walden has), an in-class session can be scheduled for the sites, allowing for staff to work with a wiki in the presence of co-workers and a trainer.  Once this practical application knowledge is acquired, staff should have no trouble using the corporate staff information wiki.
 
Wikis have been shown to be effective in this capacity before, and will show more effectiveness in the future.  A couple of examples to prove my point:
 

• "At Universitas 21 Global, selected faculty potentials undergo a mandatory three-week online faculty training programme (FTP), which they must successfully complete before they received their official appointment to teach an online class for U21Global (Gullett & Bedi, pg. 358, 2007)."  It was noted that due to the length of time of the FTP and the length of time to official appointment, it was easy for faculty to forget the information presented in the FTP.  The university implemented a collaborative wiki as a continuing part of its training and development program, allowing for faculty to access previous FTP materials, edit the materials for future use, and build social networks within the school.  This example shows well how a wiki can continue a training and development process, allow for staff collaboration, and enhance social networks.
• Innovative Learning Group in Michigan has a five-part series on YouTube extolling the virtues of interactive wikis in corporate training and learning environments.  Innovative Learning Group specializes in custom trainings, and for them to focus so much time and energy producing a five-part YouTube series extolling said virtues of wikis in training, says a lot for the increased use of wikis in training environments.  Tom Werner linked to this series on his site, workplace learning today; says Werner: "Wikis are probably the most relevant Web 2.0 tool for training because they are all about group contribution to content (http://www.brandon-hall.com/workplacelearningtoday/?p=4342)."

References:

Gullett, E. & Bedi, K. (2007).  Wiki: A new paradigm for online training and development of faculty.  Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/gullett.pdf.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.