Case Study #17: e-Learning Development at the USDA
(First in a four part series…keep following the next few days!)
How is eLearning really affecting people’s everyday lives? Often we trumpet the theories, controversies, or pros and cons in the eLearning world, but stepping back into reality, it is important to keep perspective of how eLearning is truly affects the daily life of the people and companies who use it. The following blog posts are a case study of eLearning’s influence with the US Department of Agriculture.
Case Study #17: e-Learning Development at the USDA
What Would You Do?
What would you do if you had to build 125 new e-Learning courses with more than 12,000 pages of completely custom content and more than 4,700 unique graphics and media items?
And what if every course – on top of being completely custom – still had to have exactly the same look and feel? And be SCORM conformant? And Section 508 compliant?
And what would you do if it took 35 days after you built just one course for your testing group to review, fix and approve it and, while you were building all these new courses, you also had to redesign that 35-day process to reduce it to only 3 days? And what if you had only 180 days to get all 45 of these courses built, tested, approved and loaded on your learning management system?
How would you do it? Is it even possible?
It is possible and the US Department of Agriculture’s “ Team AgLearn” did it. Read on to find out how they did it, how they earned a 533% ROI while doing it, and some of the other amazing benefits they achieved.
The Problem
Team AgLearn serves more than 130,000 USDA professionals in more than 20 business units spread all over the US. Like every organization in an era of shrinking budgets, Team AgLearn must find ways to do more with less. What makes this even harder when it comes to e-Learning is that the demand for e-Learning is going up. To meet these challenges, Team AgLearn’s director, Jerome Davin, and his leadership team knew they had to make fundamental changes to save time, save money, and still build and deliver more content.
The need for more e-Learning and the need to cut costs weren’t the only hurdles Team AgLearn faced. According to Davin, “Like all federal agencies, the USDA has strict standards for everything from bandwidth usage to LMS integration to Section 508 compliance.”
Although these standards create quality e-Learning, meeting them requires dozens of people to be part of both the development process and the review and approval process.
One way to build more courses would be to add more developers. Having more people might make it easier to build more courses, but it makes it much harder to meet the USDA’s strict standards. As Davin explained, “In many cases, Team AgLearn gets courses to put on the LMS that fall short of one or more of these standards – Section 508 being a leading failure.” If a course failed, Team AgLearn was forced to put it through a long and costly “test-fix- retest” process. That process ate up key resources – people, time and money – the USDA needed elsewhere. In most cases, the development process meant that a Team AgLearn professional spent almost all of their time dealing with only one course – from explaining the requirements of Section 508 to fixing SCORM issues to dealing with look-and-feel problems – all of which created a 1:1 model in which one Team AgLearn professional could focus on only one e-Learning course at a time. This process also meant the courses weren’t ready when the students needed them, which wasted even more time and money.
Follow up in the next couple days to read about the solution in this case study!
Bringing 508 Compliance into the Light!
(Third in a periodic series)
Meeting the challenge head on
Using our understanding of the marketplace, CourseAvenue launched an initiative to create accessible eLearning content on a large-scale. Our approach was to make our learning technology universally accessible.
Instead of relying on a single developer to understand and correctly apply accessibility design, we assembled a team of people dedicated to building this kind of accessible technology.
As we learned more about the challenges of building accessible eLearning, we realized we could capitalize on a technology we called the player skin. Originally developed to enable organizations to have one course for multiple brands, we embarked on using this technology to build an accessible version. We named this the “Accessibility Player.”
We wanted to create a product that, with 508 compliance, functioned in the same as our normal, core product. Therefore, audio, video, text, graphics, true-false assessments, multiple choice, matching, fill-in-the-blank, and ordered list question types all had to work in the 508 compliant version the same as they did in any other form. You see, we were not just skirting the issue of accessibility (as we mentioned is a common problem in our previous blog post). Instead, we want to enable as much functionality as possible.
To do this, we did not want to rely on any given content developer to know about accessibility. Other tools that are developer-dependent are too prone to error and time consuming. Instead, we created a player that handled the content development. Things like tab order and learner feedback are all handled bu the Accessibility Player. Instead of relying on the eLearning developer to set a tab order on a given page, our technology now does this, ensuring consistent navigation through the entire course, no matter how many elements are on a given page.
We also saw the need to create and manage a single course for all learners — independent of their need for adaptive technology. Aside from just matching what we believe to be the spirit of ADA/Section 508 compliance law, it enables organizations to maintain a single source of content, dramatically reducing the cost of development and content maintenance.
Just as today you probably don’t realize just how accessible public buildings are compared to those built years ago, our Accessibility Player is designed to be visually pleasing and highly functional. While not everyone may use features such as keyboard shortcuts, audio transcripts, or closed captioning, their presence really blends in with the overall course design and are available for those who can truly benefit from them.
508 compliance should not sacrifice the quality of a product, and our Accessibility player testifies to that. Moreover, at the end of the day, it helps people who may need accessible eLearning content the most.
Bringing 508 Compliance into the Light!
(Second in a periodic series)
As a continuation of our previous blog post, we pose the question…what is happening today with accessible eLearning?
There have been many responses to the daunting technical and process problems associated with creating accessible eLearning. As we talked about earlier, if an organization starts with a “funnel approach” to eLearning development, there is a built-in process challenge.
Skirting the issue
There is a wide interpretation as to what accessibility standards look like. In many cases, developers are liberal in their interpretation, resulting in courseware that may be deemed as compliant. In reality, this courseware can be challenging to actually use. Ideally, adaptive technology and accessibility should be integrated into the entire design, thereby producing an efficient and useable course.
Multiple versions of the course
To avoid the complications of having a single source for a 508 Compliant eLearning course, some organizations have provided the content in multiple formats make sure they are accessible for those with disabilities. For example, there may be an interactive version of a course built using a Flash-based delivery interface. Another non-interactive version of the course targeting those with adaptive technologies might also be made available.
There are a few problems with this approach:
First, how do you decide which format is best?
Second, it’s difficult enough to maintain even one version of the course, much less two, three, or four different versions. This poses many problems – do you hire double the staff to do this? Do you spend double the time? With this approach, efficiency goes out the window.
And finally, a number of technical and design issues come to the surface. Let’s illustrate this with a specific example. You want to embed a video as part of a learning exercise. Where does the video fit into the non interactive (say a .pdf) version of the course? Would the video be embedded in the interactive version but have a link in the non-interactive version? How would the interactive version present a post-video assessment?
Bottom line: multiple versions DO NOT make sense!
Least common denominator
In the attempt to avoid multiple delivery formats, some organizations produce all of their content in the most basic accessible format. We have seen a range of solutions using this approach, which, at its best, provides a decent learning experience for all learners. At its worst, the courseware is ineffective for both those using adaptive technology and those not.
Now, we don’t want to say that no one is creating efficient, accessible eLearning. There are a number of organizations that have produced quality work. Thanks to skilled employees and committed management, they are capable of creating this content. However, in cases where organizations do not have this sort of staff, inefficiency tends to reign.
Our next post will consider how to face these challenges head-on!
Bringing 508 Compliance into the Light!
(First in a periodic series)
There is a widely held and mistaken belief that eLearning is, for the most part, a type of web site. That slapping a table of contents, next button and a few questions on a series of pages and this “course” can be managed like any other set of web pages. This “it’s so simple” approach is then propagated by technology marketing departments promising no coding and courseware developed by anyone.
Just as developing any eLearning is more complicated than is marketed, developing courseware that is useable by those using adaptive technologies (e.g. screen readers, alternate pointing devices, etc.) has proven to be extremely difficult. The challenge is also masked by tools and technologies that try to simplify this process with the 508 compliant box.
As many organizations have found out, simply checking the 508 Compliance box does not produce useable or necessarily compliant software. This gap between perceived compliance and actual useable/compliant eLearning introduces stress, cost, and inefficiency to everyone involved. The worst of these effects is that the people that could likely derive the most benefit from 508 Compliant eLearning technology are often the ones who have the greatest difficulties using it.
Disclaimer: We recognize that the above comments are generally negative but we do not want to cast all attempts at building accessible eLearning as “failures”. There are many examples of companies providing truly accessible content.
What’s wrong?
Section 508 has provided an extensive and valuable framework for building accessible materials. However, there is a huge gap between “standards and guidelines” and their practical implementation.
This gap exists primarily for any of the following reasons:
Technology complexities
The interactions between accessible technology, web browsers, eLearning content and the LMS are very complicated. A significant number of layers of technology must be in sync for things to work. Consider the following software that must work together for every learner:
- Type, version, and options used in the operating system and support components (e.g. how are accessibility features of Windows XP, Vista used?).
- Type of and version of the browser (e.g. IE 6.x, 7.x, 8.x), Safari, Firefox – are there any add-on’s? Type and version of multimedia player (e.g. Flash player x.y, version).
- Make and version of accessibility tools (e.g. WindowEyes 6.x, 7,x or JAWZ x.y, or x.y)
Simply navigating and coordinating this matrix of technologies is challenging. The addition of an accessible technology layer adds another dimension to an already complex landscape.
A Process Problem
When developing eLearning, many organizations suffer from the “funnel problem,” in which all eLearning content is dumped or funneled down to an author. The author uses their desktop authoring tools to integrate all instructional design, graphics, multi-media, corporate standards, subject matter experts, and the ever-changing input from the “functional owner” of the course. Add to all of these demands the need to be useable and 508 compliant, and the likelihood for success is minimal.
Additionally, many organizations list “adaptive usability” and 508 Compliant as one of the requirements. For any number of reasons, treating 508 Compliance as one of the requirements likely will not work. From our experience, often regardless of 508 Compliance, by the time the core eLearning content is reviewed and approved, the content itself may be outdated. If you treat integration with adaptive technologies as another step in the review process, the timeframes extend greatly. Combine this process problem with the technology complexities, and, frankly, it is a wonder any accessible eLearning is created.
Accessibility Standards are a .pdf
Section 508 is a specification, a listing of do’s and don’ts. While there are tools out there to assist with adherence and interpretation, for any given organization or eLearning developer, adherence means understanding and applying a very large and complicated set of standards and guidelines. In summary, this is not an efficient or necessarily repeatable process. When organizations have the “funnel approach” to development, their results are dependant on “who” the effort is funneled towards.
When you combine a multitude of complicated technologies and inefficient development processes with open interpretation of requirements, it is clear why building effective and useable accessible content is so challenging.
Keep following this series to read more about what is happening with accessibility and 508 Compliance today and how we should meet these challenges.
E-Learning for Beginners: Back to Basics
(Fifth in a periodic series)
When is comes to the world of e-Learning, choose your acronym. Are you talking about LMS, CMS, KM, PM, or something completely different? What do these terms even mean?
This discussion is especially important for those who are not familiar for the world of e-Learning. To those unacquainted with these terms, they can seem like Greek. This topic is also significant for those who work with eLearning. How you define e-Learning influences how you work with it now and see its potential for the future.
So for basic education, let’s make some distinctions between the general categories of e-Learning systems, beginning with the LMS.
LMS
This acronym means Learning Management System. This system performs administration, documentation, tracking, and reporting on training and educational programs. It manages learning, as its name implies, giving instructors a way to relay content to their students.
Practically, this can look like a number of things. The LMS can keep electronic course records. It can assemble and deliver content. Basically, the LMS tracks and delivers, ensuring that learning goes smoothly.
CMS
Translation: Content Management System. This system allows many people to share information, and it controls who has access to it. It is also a way to store and retrieve data.
Practically, this is the content on a website. While the website may be facilitating its delivery and presentation, the content is rooted in a CMS. Examples of this system include Joomla, WordPress, Drupal, etc.
KM
Knowledge Management. This system varies from the others because it is different than a data warehouse or a delivery system. KMs allow communities to create, store, and share information and insight between members of the community.
Practically, this system lets employees have access to an organization’s documented data, information, solutions, or facts. One person’s insight and knowledge can inform another person’s work, ideas, solutions, etc.
PM
Finally, PM stands for Performance Management. This system includes tasks that hold a company, organization, department, or employee accountable – ensuring that it meets its goals in an efficient and effective way.
Practically, this could include titles given to employees, compensation given for someone’s work, written reviews, the capability to promote or demote, etc. Tasks that evaluate performance and act accordingly fall under PMs.
And the meaning of it all…
E-Learning can take on different forms. A basic understanding of these systems further informs the different needs e-Learning can meet, whether it be the need for administration and structure, content, evaluation, sharing, storage, etc. An ideal system would include the varying features that each of these acronyms represent. But in the practical world, being aware that e-Learning does not have a universal definition and function is a good place to start.
Save the Date!
On June 6th and 7th, George Mason University in Fairfax Virginia will be hosting the annual Innovations in E-Learning Symposium. Learn more about how CourseAvenue enables enterprise-wide e-Learning development in the presentation of a case study completed by the US Department of Agriculture at this conference. You won’t want to miss it! To find out more about the conference, visit http://innovationsinelearning.gmu.edu/. Please contact us if you want a copy of the case study in advance. You can email us at sales@CourseAveue.com.
What do you want to be when you grow up…or in another life?
Education in the Virtual World
If someone told me years ago that one day, we would use video games as a venue for class, I would have laughed and said, “Sure we will! That’s every kid’s dream.” So when I first heard about virtual worlds – and, more specifically, virtual worlds in education – it seemed crazy that this dream had become reality.
After our blog post last week on the different e-Learning styles, we thought it worthwhile to look at an example of these learning technologies in education today by considering virtual worlds.
Virtual worlds are 3-D computer environments in which users are represented on screen as avatars – either images of themselves or made-up characters – and they interact in real time with other users. Some examples of these include massively multiuser online games (MMOGs) and worlds such as Second Life.
While this technology seems cutting-edge and full of possibility, the growing disillusionment as it concerns education begs this question – by making an education system in the virtual world, are we really doing anything to improve e-Learning or are we simply making incremental changes to what we already know?
As a company, we can honestly say we don’t know where to land on that question. We have seen education in virtual worlds look the same as a lecture hall in real life – stadium seating, whiteboards, and all. How is this any different than a traditional classroom? And what about the time and money that is poured into creating this virtual reality? On the other hand, we have seen virtual worlds where you (as an avatar) meet the people you are learning about and go to places you could not go to in real life. What a unique learning experience! But is it worth it? Let’s consider the two sides to this question.
What Virtual Worlds Offer
- Virtual worlds allow you to experience things that you would not normally be able to experience. For example, when you are learning about history, you can meet Christopher Columbus instead of simply read about him. In art class, you can go to the Sistine Chapel and have it surround you instead of simply look at it in a textbook. In science, you can go inside the human body! Virtual worlds, in this unique way, enhance your ability to learn.
- Virtual worlds also have the ability to be socially interactive. People can meet at the same time to have real-time discussion and interactions (synchronous learning – refer back to previous blog post). They can also have self-paced courses (asynchronous learning). It can cater to both styles.
- Finally, it is an advantage to have a classroom accessible online. Education becomes available in any location.
What Hasn’t Panned Out
Education in the virtual world has not really lived up its potential. What got in its way?
- First, the cost to implement and run an educational system in the virtual world is very high. It costs a LOT of time and money to set-up a virtual world. The software to create the virtual world, the technology to support the software, and the man-hours to train people how to use it are just a few examples of the initial costs required for this technology to work.
- In the same vein, institutions must reexamine their priorities and how they are spending their money in a struggling economy. It is difficult to continue to invest in something that does not show strong results. There must be a measureable impact on education compared to what we have today in order to evaluate its effectiveness. Moreover, this measureable impact must be big enough to make the venture worthwhile! Because education in the virtual world is so difficult to start-up and navigate, people are questioning if it really worth the investment.
- Finally, the virtual world system is difficult to learn. Before you can use it most effectively for education, the students have to learn how to even navigate what is before them!
The Question
The bottom line is this, and it is an issue for the whole industry of e-Learning to consider: Is education in the virtual world revolutionizing and improving our ability to learn, or is it merely taking the traditional classroom and making an incremental change by making it virtual?
Sourced from KZero Worldswide
What worries us the most is that the e-Learning industry is selling itself short by seeing this form of technology as the future of education. We would love to know your thoughts on this discussion! Is education in the virtual world e-Learning at its finest, or do we need to be rethinking our direction altogether?
E-Learning for Beginners: Back to the Basics
(Fourth in a periodic series)
I still remember my first day at college. I went to class with butterflies in my stomach, not sure what to expect of this thing called “higher education.” It sounded intimidating.
My professor began the class by handing out a syllabus and explaining her procedures and the materials we would use throughout the semester. “I will be posting all the extra reading assignments on Blackboard,” she said to us. Wait, Blackboard? What is that? Little did I know that Blackboard and I would become good friends during my college years. Blackboard is a website that my professors used to post materials for their classes. They posted articles, assignments, links to other websites, discussion boards, etc. on this site. This was my first taste with technology intersecting with the classroom.
Perhaps you have had a similar experience with learning and technology. Maybe not. In your own experience, what is the first thing you think of when you hear the term “electronic learning?”
Some say that e-Learning happens when teachers use a PowerPoint. Others understand e-Learning as more advanced screen-by-screen courses online. It can also look like a webinar that people listen to over the Internet. Others see it as pdf files attached to a common website for class.
There are so many understandings of e-Learning. So what does this term mean?
Let’s begin by drawing a basic distinction between two fundamental styles of e-Learning: synchronous and asynchronous e-Learning.
Synchronous E-Learning
Sourced from “Synchronous and Asynchronous E-Learning” by Stefan Hrastinski
When instructors and students come together at a scheduled time, synchronous learning takes place. The difference between this and a traditional classroom is that everyone meets “online.” Webinars, video conferencing, or chats are common mediums used for synchronous e-Learning. This allows communication to happen real-time, allowing everyone involved to feel like participants rather that isolated learners. Along with this, responses to the material are immediate. The real-time participation makes this a social form of learning.
Asynchronous E-Learning
On the other hand, asynchronous e-Learning has more flexibility. Students and teachers do not come together “virtually” at a specific time. Instead, they complete the lesson or participate in the discussion on their own schedule. This type of learning is best done through email or discussion boards because people can pick up on the conversation whenever is most convenient. It doesn’t required real-time participation, so while it is a less social form of learning, participants can work at their own pace. This allows for deeper thinking on a topic as well because responses aren’t required immediately. Asynchronous learning is generally better for more complex topics that require more thought and time to process.
Sourced from “Synchronous and Asynchronous E-Learning” by Stefan Hrastinski
Which to use?
Both of these styles of e-Learning use technology in a unique way. Many people debate which style of e-Learning is better. Some say that a combination of both is ideal.
I suggest that having an awareness of the strengths and weaknesses for each style is ultimately the best scenario. We can then assess which style and technology will be best for a specific circumstance. To best engage with e-Learning, we should try to get the greatest benefits out of each form.
What’s your response? Do you agree with this basic e-Learning distinction?
Our next post will consider more on the controversy of the concept of the “virtual classroom.” Let’s look at how these e-Learning styles play out in the real world.
E-Learning for Beginners: Back to the Basics
(Third in a periodic series)
So what’s the big deal?
The past couple weeks we have focused on the definition of learning in great detail. Why is it so important to think about this concept of learning?
This is exactly the place where we should pause and reflect. Why does it matter? Is learning still a valued concept in our society today?
The answer is yes!
Our society has undergone economic and cultural changes. Naturally. Technology has exploded. Information is more available, and there is more of it. All these changes have only increased the significance of learning now.
And people realize that learning has changed and that we need to change with it.
Consider a national poll done by Public Opinion Strategies and Peter D. Hart Research Associates. Americans reflected on the need to teach and learn 21st century skills. The results show that they understand the economy has changed, and we need to learn 21st century skills to continue to be competitive in the workforce (see graph for skill examples). We see the shift in learning, and because of it, we need learning more than ever. More importantly, we recognize its value.
Practically, bosses want better performance from their employees. Parents want to see their kids develop skills and grow. Individuals want to challenge themselves and discover more. This is relevant because learning has tangible results, affecting profit, efficiency, and performance. Learning has great significance to us. Economic and cultural changes have driven much of the shift in learning.
Why?
To put it bluntly, it’s all about the money.
It is a simple equation: Completing a task faster + less manpower = more dough. Because technology could help solve this equation, learning shifted under economical motivation.
Paper materials became out-of-date compared to online material. Online resources allow people to access them anywhere, anytime. Gone are the days when learning was restricted to a classroom setting. People can learn according to their schedule, and more than that, materials and resources can be distributed to a larger number of people.
These economic changes walk hand-in-hand with cultural changes.
Our culture has become more “connected,” and technology has transformed the way we do everything, especially learning.
We now have the ability to connect with people outside a community and within a community. Our world has expanded beyond the four walls of a physical facility and now learning can occur in network facilities, such as the Internet and Intranet.
We can also get information immediately. This technological change allows our culture to know the most up-to-date material. Learning becomes current and relevant.
Technology has done more than enhance our old perceptions of learning; it has transformed it on the whole. Enter: e-Learning.
The concept of “learning” is a significant part of the term “e-Learning.” Now that we have a stronger understanding of learning, we can use this foundation to dive deeper into e-Learning specifically. Our next blog post will consider what e-Learning looks like.
To begin thinking about this next topic, take the short poll below to gauge your thoughts on e-Learning. We want to hear from you!
E-Learning for Beginners: Back to the Basics
(Second in a periodic series)
When I was in grade school, I read a science fiction story about a kid’s education experience. It was set in the future. In this story, he did his homework electronically and sent it to a “virtual” teacher on a screen who then talked back to him in an automated voice as they began lessons for the day.
I remember thinking as a young grade school kid that this was completely thrilling – this technological, virtual world that seemed only to exist in science fiction. The potential of technology was only a thing of the imagination at the time.
Then I grew up. And methods of learning continued to mature, and this incredible world of technology came into full form.
Along with this came a whole new idea of learning that was radically different from the idea I used to hold.
A Tangent: How Change Happens
Let me wander a bit.
I HATE change. Okay, that might be a bit strong, but I don’t usually like it. I tend to fight it. When it happens, I want it to happen slowly. I want it to happen in bite-size pieces.
At the same time, I LOVE some changes. I am in awe of guys like Steve Jobs (for example), who come along and seem to radically revolutionize a process or an entire industry. That’s inspiring.
But that doesn’t make much sense does it? How do I hate change and love it at the same time?
While I struggle with that, I don’t think I’m that much different from most of us. Most of us usually hate change. But we still rush out and buy a billion copies of Steve Jobs’ biography. What does that say?
And I think it’s because of our feelings about change that change TENDS to occur in bite-size steps. Usually, someone comes along and makes a small, incremental change to something and then another small step and then another. It’s rare that someone comes along and remakes something from scratch.
What’s Changed With Learning? Learning v. Training.
For so long, people seemed to use the words “learning” and “training” to mean the same thing. But that has changed and continues to change. “Learning” and “training” are not the same thing.
As we outline in the last post, “learning” is acquiring new skills and knowledge through experience, practice, study, or teaching. This transforms a person’s behavior, beliefs, or thoughts as a whole.
“Training,” on the other hand, teaches a specific skill to accomplish a specific end. This illustrates one form of learning, but there are other ways as well to do learning as well.
So let’s begin with this: How do we do learning?
Considering the factor that measures the success of learning – the OUTCOMES – is a great place to start.
Learning has MEASUREABLE RESULTS. It has outcomes that can be assessed and improved.
This phrase highlights the shift in learning from training to performance. In the old way of thinking, acquiring new skills resulted in being “trained.” Training only goes so far. It can be part of the process of learning, but to see it as learning itself or the outcome of learning falls short. It can be equated with teaching a dog to do new tricks. A skill is taught, but no vision is casted, no goal is set, and there is no room or motivation for innovation.
Learning needs to be performance-minded. Learning RESULTS in performance, and it can be measured and evaluated.
Learning with a performance-focus includes setting goals, instilling personal motivation, internalizing knowledge, and receiving feedback from others. Goals create motivation to perform better and more efficiently. This encourages innovation to think of new solutions and ideas to reach the goal. Acquiring new skills is the practical way to get to where the learner wants to be, and feedback ultimately refines the effort and improves the quality of performance.
What’s Changed With Learning? Where and When We Learn.
Here’s another change. For so long, learning was always equated to the “classroom.” When people talked about “learning,” they had in their heads an image of a traditional classroom, with a teacher, desks and chairs, and chalkboards. And when they talked about advancements in “learning,” they were almost always talking about ways in which that image – the old classroom – could be improved or perfected.
That thinking shouldn’t surprise us. It’s the way things traditionally change (see above).
But what we’re also starting to see is radical change. Learning is changing in a much more drastic way and we will have to stop viewing these changes as the bite-size pieces we might want. Instead of asking how we can make a traditional “classroom” better, we need to focus on how to make LEARNING better! We need to step away from any preconceived notions we might still have that “learning equals classroom” and start over with a blank sheet of paper and design it from scratch. More specifically, we need to step away from defining “learning” with an image of a place and a time (the classroom) and define it instead as the process it is, and thus free ourselves from the constraints of the place and time.
Our next post will talk about the cultural and economic changes that are driving this change and how it’s impacting learning.
Do you see this change? Let us know.
