by Steve Wexler
I’m working on the 2008 edition of the Guild’s 360-degree report on Mobile Learning. We added a new question a few weeks ago.
Here’s the question:
If you selected either "Mobile phones" or "Smart phones" in the question above, please indicate which platform would be your primary target for development?
Here are the responses, so far…
Do realize that only 205 people have responded to this question (so far). We have over 1,300 responses for the rest of the survey, but this is both a brand new question and its dependent on respondents who plan to do some form of m-Learning (and 37.5% of all respondents have no plans to do m-Learning).
If you’re a Guild member you can contribute to the survey at any time by clicking http://www.elearningguild.com/profiles/surveys/?sid=93.
Bookmark This Article To:
June 17th, 2008
by Steve Wexler
The eLearning Guild has just published its 360-degree report on Synchronous Learning Systems (SLS) for 2008 (You can find out about the report by clicking here.)
In the figure below we compare market share for various synchronous learning tool providers for June 2007 and June 2008 (This is based on 1,987 responses from 1,987 unique organizations in June 2008 and 2,006 unique responses in June 2007.) WebEx shows a modest increase (42.98%, up from 41.31%) while Microsoft and Adobe show modest decreases.
Of the tools with greater than 10% market share, Citrix enjoyed the greatest relative increase (21.35%) growing from 9.61% to 11.73% market share.
In the next figure we see the internal gain/loss in market share. Linden Research’s Second Life enjoyed the greatest increase (187.5%), jumping from a .80% to a 2.32% market share. Saba shows the greatest decrease (-36.7%), going from 13.77% to 8.76% market share.
In the published report we also look at this when we filter by organization size and industry.
Some interesting trends, no?
Bookmark This Article To:
June 12th, 2008
by Steve Wexler
One of the coolest aspects of analyzing data is "connecting the dots" and seeing relationships among elements that may not be obvious.
Consider this question from the Guild’s Synchronous Learning Systems Survey:
37.3% of the 1,200+ members strongly agree with this statement, as shown below:
So, what do these 37.3% do differently from the others that they maintain that synch learning is as effective as good F2F classroom sessions?
Well, here’s one finding:
Members that invest in more formal instruction on how to deliver synch learning indicate better results (they also indicate that they’ve received a better ROI, too).
More to come…
Bookmark This Article To:
May 30th, 2008
by Steve Wexler
I’m working on the upcoming Guild 360-degree report on Synchronous Learning Systems that is scheduled for publication in mid-June.
Over 1,200 members have completed or updated the synchronous learning survey in the last 12 months. Part of the report will be a side-by-side-by-side comparison of the eight tools that received responses from at least 15 different organizations. I’ve prepared two summary charts that have the 19 features we’re comparing along the left size and the eight tools we compare along the top.
(Note: This is just the tip if the iceberg, so to speak. The report goes into a lot of depth beyond these summary charts.)
These charts are a bit difficult to read online but print very nicely. My question is which chart is easiest for you to grok?
Candidate Number 1:
Candidate Number 2:
Bookmark This Article To:
May 27th, 2008
by Steve Wexler
If you’ve not done so, check out this Newsweek article…
http://www.newsweek.com/id/137547
and in particular Newsweek’s criteria for ranking the top high schools.
I’m really aghast at how Newsweek makes its determination and wrote a letter to the editor. I have no idea if it will be published or not, so I’ve included the letter here. Your thoughts?
As director of research and emerging technologies for The eLearning Guild I have had many discussions with truly brilliant people who debate whether formal classes and traditional testing techniques are valid approaches to learning and measurement. That is, do students learn effectively in a formal setting, and do traditional forms of testing and assessment serve as a good barometer of future success?
I would be surprised if any of the Guild’s 30,000+ members would consider course load as a way to measure a school’s excellence, so why on earth would Newsweek use college-level test participation to rank high schools? This approach does not take into account how well a student performs; it only measures the number of tests a student takes.
To measure success based on the number of advanced courses is tantamount to opening a student’s back-pack to see how many text books he/she is carrying and giving high marks to the schools that ask its student to carry many books.
It’s one thing to have students that are truly ready take college-level courses; but because the grade you use to anoint excellence increases when juniors and sophomores take advanced classes, schools are pressuring younger students to take on a burden for which they may not be prepared. Remember, the school will get a high grade just for having students take a test; the student does not have to perform well.
Learning professionals the world over are radically re-thinking how to best get students to learn and perform better as well as how to best measure a student’s achievement and aptitude. None of these people think counting courses is a good way to measure success or foster academic achievement. I hope next year Newsweek will reconsider and not use Jay Mathews’ measurement criterion as it is of questionable value and has the unintended consequence of encouraging sophomores and juniors to take classes for which they are often unprepared.
Sincerely,
Steve Wexler
Director of Research and Emerging Technologies
The eLearning Guild
Tel: 914.945.0567
Cell: 914.621.8660
Bookmark This Article To:
May 23rd, 2008
by Steve Wexler
May 22, 2008
Having just published the Guild’s 360-Report on Learning Management Systems for 2008, I’m now in the throes of reviewing survey results for the Synchronous Learning report that we’ll be publishing in middle of June.
In particular, I’ve been reviewing members’ response to the question about costs and there is a HUGE difference in the number of people indicating “I Don’t Know” in the synch report than there is in the LMS report.
Here’s results as of today for the LMS report. Notice that the total of members reporting “Don’t know” is 20.0% (based on 1,200 responses).
And here are the results as of today for the synch report where the total for “Don’t Know” is a whopping 55.5%!
Thoughts?
Bookmark This Article To:
May 22nd, 2008
by Steve Wexler
One of the great things about producing research with the Guild is that a lot of members contribute data.
But we still have to shake the tree every now and then to get people to take surveys as I don’t think members realize that they can take/update surveys at any time. Indeed, we don’t want members to wait for us to nag them. Using a new tool? Update your tools profile. Rolled out at ILS and got good/bad results? Take two minutes to update the Simulations, Games, and Immersive Learning survey. Find that you now LOVE your LMS vendor? Update your responses in the LMS survey.
You don’t have to wait a year. And if you wait longer than a year, you fall off the radar, so to speak. We’ve set up our DDA porfolios so that they will not reflect survey responses that are more then a year old. Of course, you can change this if you want and only look at results from the last 90 days, but by default our “freshness” criteria is 365 days.
Not-so-radical transparency (what we should fix)
Now, to some extent we’re perpetuating the “wait for us to nag you” problem by not showing Guild members that some of their responses are getting stale. Indeed, looking at your member profile you might think that all is as it should be when in fact a lot of data you submitted is over a year old.
Okay. We’ll fix this so it better communicates what’s up-to-date and what is not. But in the meantime…
What’s good for Guild Research is Good for the Industry
Really. The more, better data we get, the more, better information we can share with our members.
So, what can you do to help? Right now I’d love to get people to update their tools profile so we know which tools you use. EVEN IF NOTHING HAS CHANGED, you need to confirm that nothing has changed.
BTW, we no longer ask you to rate each tool you use as we get much deeper data from our dedicated surveys, so updating your tools profile shouldn’t take long at all.
Click HERE to update your tools profile.
And thanks.
Bookmark This Article To:
March 25th, 2008
by Steve Wexler
I was attending an IDC briefing on Social Networks the other day, and was struck by an interesting contrast between embedded learning/EPSS and social networks.
In an EPSS (and with most forms of embedded learning I’ve seen) the goal is to allow people to learn/complete their tasks as quickly and efficiently as possible without having to contact another person. That is, a criterion for success is that the person got the information he/she needed without having to rely on other people.
But in a social network the goal is to get as much useful input from as many people as possible.
Yes, I know. Where and how you use each approach matters quite a bit as sometime embedded learning is the best approach and at other times relying on the wisdom of crowds (or at least a few smart cronies) is the best approach.
But there is something funny about these two statements:
From the embedded learning person: “And the best thing about it is that the person didn’t have to contact anybody to get his job doen.”
From the social networking person: “And the best thing about it is that the person was able to contact lots of people that could provide useful information.”
Bookmark This Article To:
March 20th, 2008
Previous Posts
