Nelson Croom's Blog

A Nelson Croom Orange: Part 1

by Angela Smith

I have just finished reading A Clockwork Orange – a book I should have read long ago - and its vivid world is still hanging around in my head as I write this. The connection, less tenuous than you might imagine, is compliance.

In A Clockwork Orange the protagonist, Alex, is subjected to the Ludovico Technique, a form of aversion therapy. He is exposed to montages of violent film whilst under the influence of a nausea-inducing drug. The technique conditions him to physically recall this extreme nausea when exposed to violence (or to the classical music used to score the films – a cruel punishment for Alex, who is a Beethoven devotee). The goal of the treatment is compliance – to condition Alex not to act on his violent impulses.

We often talk about “drumming things into” people – a phrase reminiscent of the violence of the Ludovico Technique – particularly in the context of getting people to obey laws or rules. Thie metaphorical “drumming” is a technique we use frequently in learning materials in the hope that repeated elements will leave their impression in the learners’ minds. And they do.

An example from one of our compliance courses is the repeated image of a telephone. Each time you click on it you see the same warning. The first few times you see it you click, just in case there is something different back there (that’s the power of concealing information from learners!) And even once you stop bothering to click on it, whenever you make the micro-decision not to click, you recall the warning.

In A Clockwork Orange, though the Ludovico Technique “works” in one sense, in another sense it is a completely botched job. Alex is not reformed, he is not really being “good” – he has free will, but not freedom of action – he does not choose to behave well, he is forced. If he wasn’t forced, he would be off on his usual ultra-violence nochy shenanigans. Similarly, just because you recall the clicky telephone’s warning, does this mean you will heed it? In the absence of nausea-inducing conditioning (something we tend not to resort to at Nelson Croom), not necessarily.

So if drumming things in only gets half the job done, what else do we have to do to change behaviour? The missing link, of course, is attitude. And how can we change people’s attitudes? Well that’s a whole other entry…

The next generation of elearners

by Jacqui Nelson

We talk about how Web 2.0 will change elearning. We already offer courses on which learners can ‘chat’, share answers and ideas, give opinions, blog etc. But, to my mind, that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

Elearning has always had to defend itself against those who believe that if you take the face to face social interaction out of learning, the experience is diminished.

But that’s going to change. There is a new generation of learners. They are more at home chatting on the web than they are face to face. They’d rather send texts than call someone. Anyone with teenage children will back me up on this one. When I was a kid, my parents despaired of the hours I spent running up their phone bill, chatting to friends I had seen an hour earlier at school. My 13year old niece hardly ever picks up the phone. But she’s always on Bebo, or Instant Messenger which is how I now talk to her.

I was talking recently to the Chief Exec of a large charity and he said that he communicated more with his daughter online then he did face to face, even when they were in the same house. What’s more he reckoned that she was much nicer online than she was in the flesh!

People talk about web ‘natives’ (I’m not one, I’m quite clearly only visiting!) but as this generation matures they are going to expect e-learning to allow them to chat, discuss, contribute and collaborate. Learning experiences will happen in facebook style communities. And my bet is that they this new generation will choose online learning over attending an face to face event.

Are you an innie or an outie?

by Nicola Dann

No, I'm not talking about belly buttons, but your natural tendency when learning. Do you prefer the detail or are you more of a big picture person? With elearning, there isn't a trainer who can get to know the different personalities of the people in a training course in order to pick activities that will suit them, so within our courses we need to offer activities that provide something for everyone.

An example of this is in our use of divergent and convergent focused activities. Big picture people generally prefer to be given a wide brief and few instruction. They just want to get on with it. This kind of learner takes well to activities requiring divergent thinking - they are comfortable with ambiguous, less defined information and guessing its meaning. To suit this learner type we create activities that ask them to look at a situation or issue and open it up, to use their imagination and come up with new possibilities.

If you are more of a detail person, you will likely prefer to be given specific instructions or have a more focused brief than 'top down' people. There is a preference for clear and concrete information and a dislike of guessing when facts aren't clear. For this preference we create activities that require a more structured application of knowledge where the learner needs to use convergent thinking. For example, we might present a practical scenario or case study and ask them to decide what they would do in that situation, or provide a solution in a more structured way than would be expected in a divergent activity.

I'm glad people have these different preference, as it would be a lot less interesting for those of us creating the courses if we only did things one way - we're all as different as the learners out there!

Web 2.0 and its role in formal learning

by Jacqui Nelson

We’ve talked about how we shouldn’t fear web 2.0 and the opportunity it presents for online learning. But just how much can students rely on communication, collaboration and user generated content to learn. The current debate is, although there are obvious benefits to informal learning, does the web 2.0 philosophy have any place in formal learning.

A brief look at our clients and the work we do for them suggests that they answer is Yes and No. It depends on three things, objective, learners and content; what is the client is trying to achieve, who are their learners and what is the content like.

At Nelson Croom we have always advocated that online learning should be about the facilitating students learning, rather than teaching them but still at the heart of everything we do, is the content. Not user generated content but content generated by experts who, in the main, know more than those studying the materials.

We also believe that using communication and collaboration tools is key to making the learner’s experience less isolated and to keep them motivated. For this the ability to incorporate blogs, discussion, learners sharing answers with other learners and interaction with tutors is essential, and really works to cut drop out rates and keep people engaged.

We work with many professional associations to help them deliver their qualifications online. For many we use web 2.0 tools to enhance the learning experience but we always place firmly at the centre of any learning experience, the content. My colleagues are much better placed to discuss this than I, but at Nelson Croom we believe our expertise in manipulating content to create engaging and relevant learning experiences is where we add the value.

So we believe the answer is a resounding YES, for distance learning qualifications. Web 2.0 has a very real and beneficial role to play in this very formal learning activity. It is invaluable but never at the expense of core, relevant, stimulating content.

The answer could be NO, on the other hand when you look at our compliance clients. We work with a number of big businesses to deliver a range of different compliance courses designed to minimise risk in their businesses. The motivation for people to do these courses is simple…they are told by their bosses that they have no choice, and they are chased until they have completed. They want to get the experience over as quickly as possible and pass the assessment so they ‘comply’. They would not be interested in mind broadening discussions and the idea that learners generated there own, unedited content would send out clients over the edge.

From this I conclude that with all new developments in thinking or technology, it is important to embrace them, get excited about the possibilities they present BUT to consider them in the context of what you are trying to achieve, who your learners are and what the content is like. 

The importance of roleplaying

by Rachel Bruce

I recently took my four year old daughter to the Natural History Museum.  I thought she would love seeing the dinosaurs but what she was most excited about was making use of the Explorer Backpacks that the museum make available to the under sevens.  They come complete with a hat, binoculars and rucksack full of paper and pencils to draw things they see on the way round. Role-playing in this way made the experience of learning about the dinosaurs a great adventure for her.

At Nelson Croom we make efforts to simulate this kind of experience online with our experimental activities.  We often use these to illustrate scenarios and then ask the learner to imagine how they would respond in a certain situation.  Many learners on our courses report that they enjoy these online role-plays.  Whatever age you are it seems that imagining you are someone else can provide a powerful route to learning.

My daughter enjoyed being an explorer and learning about the dinosaurs, although she regularly peered out from behind her binoculars on the way round wanting confirmation that the animatronic model dinosaurs, “Have batteries in don’t they?  They aren’t real are they?”

Which is my best side?

by Katy Hillary

I was about to write about some design work I have been doing on the big dental project that I’m sure we’ve all mentioned (it is taking up a lot of our time at the moment!) but then I spotted something.

The pictures of each other that we are using on the blog. Did anyone ever explain where they came from? Did we commission a Nelson Croom portrait to celebrate a good year? Did Alan bring in paints to amuse Edie and Leo when they came to work with daddy one day? Has Hamish lost the plot design-wise or is he aiming for a more “naïve” feel?

Well actually we painted them at our Christmas party last year. We sat down in pairs, with a refreshing glass of something festive and some poster paints, and tried to immortalise our partners on canvas. Some were more successful than others as I’m sure you can see!

I painted Angela, who seems very bright and larger than life, possibly due to arrested development of my painting abilities aged about 12. Angela’s version of me on the other hand, seems to be visiting from beyond the grave, and I’m clearly not very happy about it either. Of course, next morning as I boarded the red eye flight to Belfast, having got up at 5am with a bit of a headache, it was actually a pretty accurate likeness...

Can you guess who painted each of the others?

Flexibility vs productivity

by Alan Nelson

The subject of flexibility seems to keep cropping up at the moment. One of the generally acknowledged benefits of online learning is its flexibility. A new project we are workingo n is a good example of this. Resolution is the professional body for family lawyers. They are committed to the constructive resolution of family disputes, with members following a Code of Prctice that promotes a non-confrontational approach to family problems. New members are all required to attend a half day course explaining the code, but with 70 new members a month joining all over the country, it is a logistical nightmare trying to organise enough courses in the right locations. By converting the course into an online format they will enable people to take the course as soon as they join. So, flexibility is a good thing.

The discussion at a recent Board Meeting touched on this. We started out discussing the subject of productivity. Are we getting better at what we do? Can we do it more quickly? It's almost nine years since Nelson Croom was established and we have never had a member of the core development team leave. So they have got pretty good at what they do. However, that is only half of the story. Our clients rightly want us to be able ot react quickly to their needs. This often means that work comes in peaks and troughs. So we also need to be flexible.

Of course, there is a direct trade-off between our ability to provide a flexible and reactive service, and our always being able to produce work of the highest standard?

How do we deal with this? The answer lies in our own publishing programme. We use the quieter periods to schedule work on our own course - short CPD courses aimed at professionals in a variety of sectors. This enables us to retain a team of experienced and creative learning designers and developers and ensure that they are never twiddling their thumbs.

Web 2.0: Apparently it's not rocket science

by Jacqui Nelson

I used to be slightly embarrassed about not completely grasping Web 2.0. Whatever it was, I suspected that it was going to make a big difference to what learners – particularly distance/online learners – would want and expect from their learning experience so I should know about it. With this in mind I set out to do some research and I’m happy to share with you what I find out and most importantly what it means for elearning, our clients and our learners.

The first thing I found out was that I am not alone in my ignorance … in fact it is not ignorance at all. I realise I know lots about Web 2.0 and use many Web 2.0 features personally and for our clients, I just didn’t realise that’s what it was called.

So for anyone else out there who nods and smiles (is that a woman thing?) every time they hear the phrase Web 2.0, here’s what I discovered.

Essentially Web 2.0 is a term used to describe a ‘second version’ of the internet. If you have software, for instance, when you issue a radically new and different version you add ‘2.0’ at the end and that’s what internet bods have done. As a name it has been dismissed by some as marketing speak but in the main it has been widely adopted as a descriptor for a new generation of web services. The term is credited to Tim O’Reilly, founder and CEO of O’Reilly Media, or at least one of his employees, depending on which website you read.

What Web 2.0 refers to is new and innovative online services. These services relate to community building, social networking, user generated content etc. It’s about increasing interactivity between web users and between users and sites.

In terms of online learning this is really important. We’ve always striven to make our learners feel less isolated and more part of a community and these innovations and tools mean we can do even more than before.

Incidentally, Web 2.0 also covers the concept of Software as a Service (SaaS) which advocates the end to buying software in a box but actually using software available over the web and hosted by a third party. What are the benefits of this type of application? It essentially takes the technical headaches away from the end user and places them with the provider … A model that we have always used at Nelson Croom with Imago, the hosted technology that runs all our online programmes.

Out of sight but not out of mind?

by Victoria Clarke

As an advocate of the many benefits of distance learning, it's really encouraging to see that a number of professional associations are now starting not only to bring their qualifications online, but also make use of various web 2.0 technologies.

I studied some literature and linguistics courses with the Open University not that many years ago and even then some of my study material was supplied on audio cassette and video! At the time it seemed a bit old-fashioned (although I think that the OU were trying to make best use of the supplies they already had rather than source CDs and DVDs and pass the cost onto their students). It's good to hear that the OU are now not only supplying CDs and DVDs in the 21st century they're also harnessing the power of blogs, podcasts and wikis. I have to say that their online support was good and the ability to participate in discussion forums or use the online library was a massive help with my studies - not just in helping me to avoid the isolation that distance learning students so often feel but also in giving me information at my fingertips just when I needed it ... especially useful when you're burning the midnight oil trying to juggle your studies with a full-time job and still find time for eating and sleeping!

And now, researching places that I can continue my own learning and development I see that there is a wealth of colleges that are offering distance learning options. Great, if they are able to fully support a student that is definitely out of sight, if not completely out of mind. As my colleagues will tell you, there's a lot more to providing a distance learning course than just supplying students with some reading material and letting them get on with it. That's why we've spent time fine-tuning our approach - and we'll continue to develop it as our clients' (and their students') needs change. For instance, over the last few months we've been doing some work with the PMI (you can read all about it on our website) that improves the way that students can submit their assignments and how tutors can mark them.

So, what is web 2.0 all about?

by Tony Short

Someone asked me, the other day, what Web 2.0 is all about.

There are all sorts of definitions flying around on the Internet – mainly comprising long series of jargon phrases, which no-one really understands either.

A working definition

I attempted a much shorter definition for the layman, and here’s what I came up with:

“Web 1.0 is all about provider content.
Web 2.0 is about user content”

I was quite pleased with this uncharacteristic brevity!

A cynic’s definition

“Web 1.0 was all about the publisher and experts doing a lot of hard work.
Web 2.0 is about getting the punter to take on the job of generating the content (without them realising it!)”

Of course, when the punters provide the content through wikis, blogs, reviews, discussions forums, etc, it throws up a major “quality control” problem. But then, this is mitigated by the fact that the website proprietor can always blame the users when inaccurate (even slanderous) information appears!