The Department of Health published its new e-learning framework last week, titled “A Framework for Technology Enhanced Learning”.
In this short blog, I will explore some of the emerging implications of this framework for learning professionals in the NHS.
If you haven’t yet read the framework, you can find it here. The executive summary in particular, with its 12 recommendations, is a quick and easy read. The 60 second version would be the 6 principles:
a. Be patient-centred and service-driven.
b. Be educationally coherent.
c. Be innovative and evidence-based.
d. Deliver high quality educational outcomes.
e. Deliver value for money.
f. Ensure equity of access and quality of provision.
On the whole, I’m pleased to see the title of this paper focusing on “technology-enhancement” rather than just “e-learning”, as I think this flags that there is much more to this topic than just the creation and broadcast of e-learning content. However, we don’t see very much in the framework about this promised wider use of technology. I think it would have been useful to see even more about the use of mobile applications, social learning and innovative assessment (virtual assessors and e-portfolios). There is also a bit of an implicit assumption in the framework that e-learning approaches are going to be sophisticated and complex – and therefore time-consuming to create. I think there is a trick missed here around rapid e-learning and the relationship between technology-enhanced learning, and knowledge management strategies.
The biggest question that the framework leaves us with, however, is “what does this mean in practice for learning professionals”. To be fair, this practical advice probably wasn’t the remit of the framework. So I’ve tried to sketch out some of the implications from just recommendations against the first 2 principles here.
| Recommendation (summarised from the framework) | Implications for technology | Implications for L&D departments |
| Healthcare professionals should learn skills in a simulated environment before undertaking them in supervised clinical practice. | Use of technology to support simulations can range from the relatively simple (using technology to track the scenarios that a learner has completed, and their responses/outcomes) to the very sophisticated (virtual reality, 3 dimensional approaches). Do make sure that the technology used is in line with the learner benefits! | Does the team have skills in creating simulations? Not just technology (because technology is not always required) but in creating convincing case studies and paths through the study, that cover a wide range of possible situations? Simulations are expensive to create, so how can the team collaborate with others inside and outside the organisation to create economies of scale?When and how would you create simulated environments? What is your business case for doing this? |
| A lead should be identified to ensure that learners have appropriate access to technology to support their learning. | Ensuring appropriate access to technology does not, of course, mean high-specification computers on everyone’s desks, nor tablet computers for the whole workforce – but it does suggest a move towards ubiquity of access (in line with principle f – “Ensure equity of access”). | The role of the “technology lead” is not defined, nor are the capabilities required, but we’d suggest that this person should:
|
| Those purchasing technological solutions should undertake regular review to ensure they meet needs and provide value for money. | The e-learning and learning management system market place is still quite confused, and it would be easy to unwittingly buy into approaches that are not future proof. Is your learning platform, and your learning content, standards-compliant? Do you know your SCORM 1.2 from your 2004 (and why the difference can be important?). Are you clear what Run-time web services could do for you? You may not need to know this yourself, but someone in your organisation should. | We’re often asked to review an organisations’ e-learning content, and we’re surprised at how much of the content provided is fairly low-engagement (bullet point lists from PowerPoint) and quite out of date (not keeping up to date with latest legislation or practice, for example). If all you need is simple on-line text – and there’s nothing wrong with this at times – and there’s really no need to engage expensive e-learning content providers. But if you do decide to spend money on external providers, be clear:
Do you have the skills in your team to identify and procure technology solutions which are fit for purpose and future proof? |
| Providers should provide appropriate access for all their students to a system to manage, record and evaluate their learning, for example through a learning management system. | A system that works across organisational boundaries and brings social care, healthcare and education on to a common platform. Or at least common technology and data standards to allow organisations to communicate effectively. | We see huge potential for economies of scale and for increased cultural alignment through shared learning activities, where organisations can collaborate across a learning management system. There are a number of technical solutions that let organisations collaborate in terms of sharing e-learning, sharing courses and allowing social learning across boundaries. I don’t have space to write about all this here – so please contact usif you’d like to hear more about this.What is your plan for implementing systems across multiple organisations? |
| Those responsible for developing curricula or similar learning frameworks should recommend what role simulation, e-learning or other technologies should play to support learning and assessment. | I’d re-phrase this recommendation because I’m not sure it should always be the responsibility of the curriculum designer. I’d say: “the potential use of technology should be something which is considered at each stage of the learning design”. Generally, e-learning design has 3 domains: subject matter expertise, instructional design, technology expertise. These 3 domains don’t necessarily have to be managed by 3 different people, but equally it’s rare to find a single person with expertise across all of these areas. So: How is your Learning and Development department structured and skilled so that the right expertise is delivered at the right part of the design process? | |
| The use of simulation, e-learning and other technologies should be mapped to specific learning outcomes. | The theory is well-known, but we don’t often see it in practice: start with learning outcomes, then create assessments, then create a range of learning activities (technology-enabled and low/no-tech) to allow learners to manage their own route to competence. There are also potential funding streams available for learning which is cleverly mapped to national standards.How much of your learning is mapped to, and based on, standardised learning outcomes? | |
| Simulation, e-learning and new technologies should be appropriately integrated in a blended approach. | We’re often asked how to implement “blended learning” approaches. My first reaction is usually to ask what you mean by “blended”: Is it blending:
And secondly, who is doing the “blending” i.e. who’s deciding which elements, in what mixture? I’m a fan of letting the learner decide what elements they need – i.e. set the required learning outcomes, with decent assessment so that everyone’s clear when the outcomes are met, and then let the learner decide which learning elements, using what media, to follow in what order to achieve the outcome. We might have a “suggested order” or a “read this first” approach, and there are complexities when running group learning activities in ensuring that all participants have the right level of prior knowledge. So I’d liken blended learning to a “quest for learning” – give the learners a map and a goal, and let them achieve in their own way. Are you clear what you mean by “blended learning” in your organisation? Do you have clear criteria for when and how to blend learning, and how much control to give learners, vs. managers, vs. the central teams? |
Please let us know what you think, and look out for a follow-up blog with the rest of the implications soon!
About Tim Newham
Tim is the founder and Managing Director at Think Associates Ltd. He takes an active role in helping clients and has specialist interests in organisation development, process improvement and knowledge management. Tim has over 10 years’ experience of managing large-scale performance and learning processes in the public sector, and focuses on building the bridges between HR policy/process, line management requirements, and IT systems to make life easier for staff. Tim has a First Degree in Engineering Systems and a Masters Degree in Management.
Mail | Web | LinkedIn | More Posts (26)
Pingback: Collaboration using e-Learning Technology | Think Associates Ltd