This article was prompted by something in Elliott Masie’s newsletter last week (www.masie.com). He was providing “tidbits” from the annual Learning Trends conference. He said “Quiet on the e-Learning Brand: I realized that none of our main stage speakers and few of the breakout speakers used the word “e-Learning”. The discussions were clearly about leveraging technology for learning – from JCPenny using their cash registers to deliver video messages from the CEO to the Peace Corps using smart phones to display instructional videos in the field, but the “e-Learning” brand seems to be rapidly shrinking. Traditional branched CBT like modules seem to be growing mainly in the compliance arena, where more learner driven content formats are expanding in the performance arena. We have never seen more learning using technology for design, delivery or collaboration. But, the “e” is dropping away in the branding.”

This got my attention, because I’ve long been agitating for all of us to lose the “e”. Apart from the fact the “e-learning” has been imbued with some sort of mystery and special status, to my mind learning is learning. No-one makes a thing about instructor led training (ILT), unless they are competing against technology enabled learning.

One thing that does please me though; when the term E-learning was coined to describe Computer Based Training that was delivered via the web, at least the term incorporated the word “learning”. Technology based learning is of its very nature learner-centric, whereas training always makes one think there must be a trainer or teacher somewhere.

We should be focusing on the learning, hopefully as part of a blended programme. And while I’m on the subject, there is nothing new in Blended Learning either. Back in the dark ages, when I went on a Train-the-Trainer’s course, we were taught to have us multiple media; before computers this included white boards, OHP’s, flow charts, maybe some video, and other tools. The “horses for courses” principle applied as well; picking the medium best suited for the learning objective and outcome. The budget must be taken into account as well.

I’m also amused that the new drive towards “personalized learning” is still coupled with the word “pedagogy”. Surely that’s a contradiction in terms. How can a process that is “teacher-centric” – pedagogy – be personalized to the learner’s needs and preferences at the same time?

Our tagline is “Learning Solutions for Africa”, because that’s what we provide and what we are passionate about. The solutions might be primarily technology based, but technology is just the delivery mechanism.