I’ve noticed that these terms are being used loosely, and
that this is causing problems in comprehending underlying phenomena. Simple
example: I read a blog today which argued (on the basis of MOOC studies) that
online learning isn’t as popular as we might think. Wrong. Online learning is
hugely popular; for most Western adults it is now the dominant form of
learning, I believe. By contrast E-learning is, and always has been, unpopular. If you
monitor the sentiment analysis then the characteristic positive sentiment from e-learning
users is that ‘it sucks, but at least I don’t have to go to school’. So how
should we use these terms?
E-learning applies to (typically) SCORM-compliant, tracked, LMS-oriented
learning modules where the presenting objective is to impart knowledge. In
fact, within corporate environments, they are used mainly for compliance
purposes and in the management of risk, therefore. They are disliked for this
reason, and because they are boring –i.e. because typically conversion to
e-learning format means stripping out all the affective elements that make
learning effective. Incredibly, they are still more effective that f2f methods
overall which is no more than a sad indictment of education.
Blended learning used to mean converting some of the content
of a f2f programme into e-learning, so that the cost of delivering the programme
overall could be reduced. Nowadays a more sophisticated interpretation – that of
blending a variety of formal & informal methodologies to achieve outcomes
effectively and efficiently – is more common. A modern ‘blended programme’ is
likely to include a wider variety of electronic elements: such as virtual
classrooms, forums – and e-learning modules. But overall it is still short of
the kind of online learning that people love to do everyday – why? Because,
like almost all educational programmes it is content- (not context-) centric
and about telling people stuff they don’t really need (or want) to know, right
now.
Online learning, by contrast, is typically delivered at
point of need and is most thought of as ‘performance support’ in a pedagogical context. Learning
is a by-product of referencing. We need to find something out – how to do
something, what is going on, etc. – and we Google it. Superficially this
process is driven by tasks, but under the bonnet it is really driven by
care/concern: I spend time reading learning blogs not because I have to for
work, but because learning is something that concerns me. Around 80% of people's
learning is informal – has always been informal – what is dramatic is that in
the last decade of so, this informal learning has increasingly switched from ‘asking
the person next to you’ to ‘Googling’. Most online learning is not 'called out' as such. Online learning is not characterised by
being flashier or more expensive than e-learning – on the contrary, for the
majority of learning professionals their no.1 leaning tool is Twitter. Online
learning is loved because it is close to our concerns; whether that is a task
we need to do right now, or something that matters to us.
End of lesson ;o)
You and I would probably agree about what makes good learning, so this is all about terminology. I don't get why the term 'online learning' signifies 'good learning' when it just indicates the delivery mode. After all, e-learning is a form of online learning and it is quite possible for a blend to be entirely online.
ReplyDeleteI know most instructional e-learning is unpopular because, while it is typically presented quite nicely these days (at least when produced professionally), it is usually far too abstract and information-heavy. However, my experience is that well-designed scenario-based e-learning can be very popular and effective in generating insights.
As someone who spends a great deal of their time helping people to design great blends I cannot let you get away with the notion that blending is 'about telling people stuff they don’t really need (or want) to know, right now'. Who says? Surely this is just bad design. Have you shifted your position from 'less courses, more resources' to 'no courses at all under any circumstances'? We still need great interventions, and there are many situations in which to do this entirely online simply wouldn't work.
Hi Clive. I spotted you at Learning Tech but you were moving too fast ;o) I think I'd rather be learner-centered than academic (no surprises there). At a semantic level we could argue the toss over whether e-learning is a form of online learning, but ask your average learner about the difference between e-learning & the kind of learning they do online, every day - and the distinction will come into sharp focus. If we are going to do online learning it needs to resemble the digital forms our learners know & love already - rather than just a 'rebranding' of e-learning.
ReplyDeleteOn the 'resources not courses' topic: you may recall the diagram in the 'Tragedy of L&D' post - I still admit of some 'push' interventions, including simulation, storytelling & scenario (Dr Itiel Dror made me think maybe I should add 'surprise'), but I have observed that as soon as something gets called 'a course' it tends to focus on content delivery to the detriment of contextual relevance - and if there really is a need to 'push' something, then content is the worst way to do it. I like your example of thought-provoking scenarios; Barbara (@caribthompson) talked about some of her work in this area at LT.
I am curious about this doctrine of 'situations in which online alone won't work?' Do you mean 'e-learning alone won't work?' What do we not use Google for nowadays? I can think of things - like sailing or becoming a doctor - where online might only take you 70% of the way... but if I imagine what's left it doesn't seem much like a traditional course. Certainly much more informal. So perhaps we are only left with a blend of informal (online) & informal (offline)?
Seems the problem is that bad practice has made us reluctant to use some words because they are so damaged. Just because it is your experience that "when something gets called 'a course' it tends to focus on content delivery to the detriment of contextual relevance" doesn't mean that courses have to be that way, and I've experienced quite a few over the years that have had almost no content at all.
ReplyDeleteInformal online and informal offline makes sense as a blend in some circumstances but not all. There are situations in which employers and/or employees want some formal and widely-recognised assessment of outcomes. There are also situations in which a formal structure is welcomed, at least for part of the blend. We don't have to abandon the idea of a course because we don't like some of them.
Seems the problem is that bad practice has made us reluctant to use some words because they are so damaged. Just because it is your experience that "when something gets called 'a course' it tends to focus on content delivery to the detriment of contextual relevance" doesn't mean that courses have to be that way, and I've experienced quite a few over the years that have had almost no content at all.
ReplyDeleteInformal online and informal offline makes sense as a blend in some circumstances but not all. There are situations in which employers and/or employees want some formal and widely-recognised assessment of outcomes. There are also situations in which a formal structure is welcomed, at least for part of the blend. We don't have to abandon the idea of a course because we don't like some of them.
I think we've trashed e-learning (hence the 'e-learning is dead' post), and we can't now redefine it however much we might like to do so. Let's not make the same mistake twice: we can now see how and when people like to learn: with a little humility and plenty of audience analysis we can set aside the instructional design baggage and discover ways of really supporting people, online.
ReplyDeleteI admire your optimism that 'course' can be rehabilitated: in no sense could my day-to-day learning now be described as a course. Could yours? What percentage of your learning comes from 'courses', would you estimate? The very word conjures up a system of authority and formality that struggles to find a place in real learning - and to tell the truth probably never did (the book 'Real Education' by David Gribble and recommended to me by my colleague Redmund Bath explores this beautifully). I am sceptical about the 'formal outcomes' - probably this is a contradiction in terms. Certainly there is a 'business assurance' question, but I don't think this is the same thing. I think we should worry less about building courses and more about how we help people to perform, develop & connect.
In short, we did dumb things. It's time to stop.
To answer your question but not to prolong the debate unnecessarily, very little of my learning is through a course, but that is because of my age and the stage I am at in my career; also because I don't have an employer to send me on courses. However, I am not completely averse to courses and have engaged in a course of tennis lessons. I am also keen to go on a course on video lighting. Sometimes I just feel I want the structure.
ReplyDeleteThe debate strikes me as out of sequence and perhaps a bit out of balance. On one hand, we're referring to semantics and labels. Even in a discipline that should have a more strongly aligned lexicon, we don't all have the same concept for what e-learning is, what a blend is, what a course is, and what online learning means. All courses are not equal. While it’s a convenient label for a package of information, some would argue that many online courses are not courses at all. So goes the conflation of information with training that is all too common in this field. In addition to the conflation of these elements, we tend to have a binary mental model for e-learning components that sets them off as an either / or isolated intervention.
ReplyDeleteOn another hand, the argument also seems to indicate that we shouldn't give credence to formal learning structures - that these might be completely useless in the Google age. Even as someone that can see great promise in the flexibility of emergent structures that connect folks with what they need wherever they are, I see railing against formal structures of any kind as off-kilter. Formal structures can lend consistency and repeatability. For new performers, I think the "alone in the wilderness" approach is counter-productive in all but the rarest of cases. Some things should not be left up to chance. As for certifications, these are indications of confidence from a body that validates someone is ready to perform a task. While, as a patient, I might not maintain conscious concern about a doctor’s certifications, I wouldn’t want to be the first patient on his pathway to “proving he could do it”. In many performance domains, leaving it up to chance simply isn’t good enough. Even if it was, autodidacts and self-navigating learners are not consistently distributed. In some fields, folks with these qualities are quite rare. In many (maybe most, maybe all) performance domains, there is still a place for structured experiences and resources. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your argument above.
There are lots of ways to frame the debate. Perhaps there is room for a generalized model that considers that people are complex animals, performance competence isn't binary, and one size fits all... doesn't:) I really like the pyramid approach these folks use starting on Slide 30 of this deck:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20158485/Innovations-in-communications-and-social-media-Of-the-People
This presentation illustrates three levels of media, in the context of media consumption (radio, tv, newspaper, internet). These are "in the same place, in the same time", "in the same time", and "anytime, anyplace". The illustrations on 30 - 40 illuminate the ways consumption of information has transformed as technologies for broadcasting media and sharing experiences have changed.
Another way to frame the discussion is around modalities of interaction between the subject (the human in the equation) and the resources they need to acquire characteristics to accomplish what they need to accomplish. Here’s a model I’ve been putting together that scales through solo (things we do alone) to community (things we do with others in bands of our choosing) to world (the largest possible context). One of the things I like about this is that it highlights how we neglect many modes of interaction in our formal offerings (we tend to focus on solo and group facilitated.) Paying attention to all of the modes we use to interact with the things and people around us could make it easier for the things we provide in a formal structure to traverse to a state of usefulness in a more emergent structure.
ReplyDeletehttp://androidgogy.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/interaction_modes_frame.png
Arranging these modes on a vertical axis and driving on the X axis with structured or emergent provides a space to orient different approaches, to relate these approaches, and potentially to chain together approaches that traverse between modes (the way people do:))
http://androidgogy.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/interaction_modes.png
Thanks for your comments, Steve. I agree that the lexicon is in a muddle – let’s face it, we can’t even agree on what learning is – and I hope this blog goes some way towards addressing that.
ReplyDeleteI don’t actually “rail against formal learning structures” above: I focus more on the difference between context-centric and content-centric approaches. But you’re right to pick this up: I am suspicious of them. Both you and Clive make the ‘formal structures are good for novices’ point and I think this is a truism, maybe a legacy of institutional abuse. Wasn’t that precisely what Sugata Mitra demonstrated? That not only did children not need formal structures – that perhaps they were better off without them? That all they needed was opportunity & some encouragement? Beau Lotto made a similar point at Learning Technologies last week: that young children can learn about science though encouragement and play. Even if we dispute these, it is indisputable that the vast majority of our own learning is informal and unstructured and that this is the natural mode of learning. Whilst it is possible to conceive of structured informal learning, this is an exception rather than the rule.
No, I think we have been conditioned by the industrial accident of education to feel that we need this kind of treatment. I sympathise with Clive when he says he feels like ‘just wants the structure’.
The certification point won’t help: I don’t want certificates. I want to know that someone is capable, and certificates are doing a poorer job with every passing day: to your point, I would rather have a surgeon with no certificate and a 99.9% success rate at my operation, vs one with a dusty certificate hanging on the wall and a doubtful track record. It was only ever a proxy.
Thanks for the link, Steve – I will study today.
Donald Clark shed some strong doubts on the Sugata Mitra experiment: http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.ca/2013/03/sugata-mitra-slum-chic-7-reasons-for.html
ReplyDeleteI think we do get bogged down with 'semantics' and 'lexicons.' However, we often do need to provide definitions, especially for those we provide solutions for. The conflicting terminology creates confusion...but there again learning is a messy business. I think Euan Semple described it as Gloriously Messy at this year's learning technology conference. So the debates continue...and that is healthy. However, if we've invested time and credibility in defending 'modes' in the past...we may have a tendency to want to defend ourselves. New words get added to the dictionary each year. Some once thought the world was flat. Pluto is no longer considered a planet. E-learning is like Lola the showgirl, in the song Copacobana. Once a glorious but now faded star. However...we should never forget our heros, their meaning to us...or how far they have brought us.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMHp9a5FwrI
Steve, I use the concept of 'social contexts' in my blended learning model. I have one that you do not - one-to-one learning (with a coach, colleague, subject expert, instructor) - and you have one that I never thought of - the world! I hope you don't have copyright on the concept of the world! Many thanks.
ReplyDeleteHey Clive. I had considered this one under pair. But it's good to point out! I like this spectrum for a couple of reasons. It focuses on people without introducing tech and makes it REALLY easy to see where current solutions show bias and might be stuck in a rut.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first saw the microwave I thought this was going to be about the microwave/conventional oven metaphor for learning. Microwaves being great for warming things up, defrosting, porridge etc. but rubbish for Sunday roasts. Whereas conventional ovens are good for roasts and cakes. Some hate microwaves, some love them others have ones which use both technologies together and so on. On other words, Elearning being great for some things, face-to-face for others and you can always blend or mix. It’s all about using the best oven/tool for the job.
ReplyDeleteGagne’s came up with the idea that not all learning is the same: ‘learning to load a rifle and learning to solve a complex mathematical problem’ are quite different. Therefore, the way we approach them would/should probably also be different. So one approach or another in and of itself is neither better nor worse without a context. For example, a stimulus response approach might be effective for teaching a child that an electric socket is dangerous, but not unusable for teaching negotiation skills.
It reminds me of the blind men and the elephant story. From Wikipedia: In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement.
Of course, they are all right and all wrong because they were not looking at the whole picture.
Lynda.com has over 2,000 courses and apparently over 2 million subscribers. Have we all been conditioned by some industrial accident of education? I go there because I know it's an excellent source of reliable information which has been structured in such a way as to make it as easy as possible for me to learn. Not just what I want to know, but also what I need to know, that maybe I would have never thought about had it not been for someone with years of professional experience in the field sharing this with me. I think it's ridiculously cheap for what it is and I'm more than happy to pay. It's helped me tremendously in my career and I don't think there is anything else quite like it.
Gok Wan had a programme where he took celebrities and did a make over. I remember one with Jo Brand - stripped down and in a room full of mirrors. It was part of his tough love approach. I’m sure it was agonising for Jo and it wasn’t easy to watch. I often think that what elearning needs more than anything is to cast off all the clichés, platitudes and myths, leave egos outside the door and take a long hard look at what we’re about. Maybe then we can start to undo the damage that’s being talked about here.
Hi Andy -
DeleteInteresting train of thought, but I chose the image because it beautifully represents the transition from the old world of informal learning to the new: the photographer said his mother showed him the trick - this is how informal learning has worked for millennia: oral traditions/demonstrations handed down amongst close relationships. And then the photographer takes a picture and shares it online - instantly recording and passing on the technique for millions of strangers. This is the new informal learning.
I am not against courses in the same way that I am not against fax machines. I am just pointing out that they are dying out and why.
Maybe a story would help: around eleven years ago I worked for a telecoms company and headed up a flash team. We built desk phone training. They were complex phones. We built a simulation that would still look advanced today: you joined a simulated company, had a virtual phone - artificial characters would call you up and make requests which varied dynamically. They remembered how you treated them - you could see it in their faces, in their mood meters, hear it in their voices. You became part of an interactive storyline. You scored points, progressed through levels, made virtual characters happy. Sounds good, right?
Only later did it strike me how stupid we had been: the time when you learn how to transfer a call, the time when it really matters, is when you've got someone waiting for you to do it - someone real. And then a 40 min simulation is useless. Then, you need a resource, a reference, a piece of paper by the phone.
Not all learning works this way - just most of it - and it's getting more as referencing becomes easier. Of course certain capabilities can't be looked up - but in a mixed reality world (like google glass) it becomes a lot harder to say precisely what. Activities dependent on muscle-memory perhaps? Playing tennis? Actually no - for that I need practice, feedback & guidance (Glass could do that fine).
Hi Neil
DeleteI think we'll have to agree to disagree on courses. I don't think they've been superseeded, like the fax machine, for all sorts of reasons.
The simulation is an interesting example. Of course the flight simulators they have these days are incredible, but they're used to practise situations, so you know what to do if the time comes, in a cost effective and safe way.
It's also interesting because I think it illustrates what sometimes happens when designing elearning interactions. We have a perceived problem and then, in my experience, a group of people come up with a way of how it could be tackled rather than what actually needs to be done. I sometimes think we need a Dragon's Den approach where we'd have to get the idea past Duncan Bannatyne. Perhaps he would have said - All you need is a piece of paper by the phone and therefore, I'm out.
I'm in the middle of writing a blog about learning objectives (I know not the most gripping of issues, but perhaps one of the most fundamental ones which are either, in my view, overlooked or poorly conceived.) and the way I break them down into knowledge, skills, attitude and awareness. If you take tennis, for example, the big matches come down to things like belief, inner strength, hunger and concentration. There's often a moment when one player mentally beats the other player. I don't know if you've read the Inner Game of Tennis, Timothy Gallwey (1975), what people talk about now as being in the zone he described as effortless effort. It's much more about the attitude and awareness side of learning - not the knowledge and skills.
Earlier you mentioned learning the best part of sailing online. Round here there are a lot of people who think they've learnt all there is to know from a little reading and a Youtube video. They're usually the ones that cause havoc and get themselves and others into trouble. The more experienced sailors are the ones who know how little they know.
I was reading yesterday that one of the big elearning providers had built a solution for a high street retailer. One of the things that made the package so successful was a workbook on a USB memory stick which was described as 'just in time' learning. If only Reggie Perrin had been there. I'm sure someone would have suggested printing it off so it was always to hand, perhaps making it small enough to slip into a pocket, and then putting some sort of cover on it to protect the outside.
Hi Andy -
DeleteIt's important that we don't 'agree to disagree' just because (and especially because) we respect each other. Progress is not made that way; it is difficult to let go of conventions, but that is what this blog is about.
How odd is a course? Look back a few hundred years and there were no courses. For millennia we got along just fine without courses. But there is a history of one person addressing others, though, so let's take that a a starting point: picture a village elder addressing youths around the campfire, most probably telling stories.
Why does he do this? He tells stories because stories are formed as affective metadata attaches itself to experience - that is the birth of a story. A boring story simply isn't a story. He might talk of a fight, and how he triumphed. The affective context enables transfer. His listeners attend closely as he uses emotive language to transfer some of what he was feeling, because that is how learning works and because they anticipate such challenges - this is something that matters to them.
But why? Why transfer at all? This, after all is a peculiarly human activity - the oral transfer of learning. Because both parties are able to project a future, and therefore understand that the acquisition of knowledge/skills may be distinct from application. You learn how to fight the bear today, as you may have to fight the bear tomorrow. Even though most learning still happens as you fight the bear this cultural capability still gives us an evolutionary advantage.
But what if - what if you didn't need to remember the stories? What if you could find things out precisely when you needed them? That would be perfect. Then you could dispense with asynchronous learning altogether.
Of course you and I both know that this world has not yet come - but it is well on the way. The simulation is especially interesting - the simulation brings the bear fight to you, so the simulation stands in profound opposition to the course.
Hi Neil– I said agree to disagree for three main reasons.
ReplyDelete1) In a sense I don’t think it matters much what we think – it’s like building a path. You can build a path and hope that people will use it, wait to see where people walk and then build the path, or if there’s no pattern, leave it as people will go where they want. So the users/demand will decide in the end. If courses become redundant, they will disappear. I mentioned Lynda.com before. They produce a course a day. I think there’s still demand – not everyone has to use them – but they’ve helped me enormously over the years. There are screen casts all over Youtube but most are nowhere near the standard you’ll find on Lynda nor do they provide a cohesive, coherent progression through a topic.
2) Many years ago an orchestra decided it could get by without a conductor. They were expensive, demanding and things had to be done their way. The orchestra sacked the conductor and found that indeed they could get the same results. It just took them a lot longer and they had to work much harder.
3) You seem pretty convinced of your arguments.
I’m afraid I don’t believe that courses only came into existence a few hundred years ago – maybe they were more formalised. There were certainly teachers, and teachers organise information so that the students learn at the right time. Take bear fighting.
Many a young buck would go out and take the bears full on. The lucky ones came back hideously wounded, most were killed trying. The elders, sitting round camp fires, decided that before anymore of their young were lost there were a few things they needed to know. The first was first aid. Although none of the young fighters ever believed they’d get injured the elders new better. They also new that agility, not strength, was the most important thing in bear fighting so they made all the youngsters go through a series of exercises which made them more flexible and agile. Then they needed to learn how to read a bear – to know the moves it would make before it struck and also the bears’ weak spots (tickling them behind the ears will pacify them), and finally they get to work in pairs in the big bear role play. This is sounding pretty much like a course to me.
There’s no doubt that stories are great for learning – here’s one I did earlier (Hannah’s story http://youtu.be/7ApICNWRaFc) . Parables were used to cover complex moral issues and to illustrate them in a way that maked sense e.g. using association to go from the known to the unknown. But as I mentioned earlier, there’s all sorts of learning and, for me, it’s about picking the right tool for the job.
Einstein said something like, "I never commit to memory anything that can easily be looked up in a book". Presumably if he were alive today and drove, you’d want him to have learnt/memorised basic highway code – even though it’s easy to look up. No one memorises tide tables – never has done – you look up the information when you need it. But that’s way different from learning to plot a course (journey).
Hi Andy.
DeleteI appreciate the response:
1) does it matter if you can pay your bills? Courses may thrive or not, irrespective of what we think - but I like to think ahead. Will universities cease to exist (at least in their current form)? How will people choose to learn in future? These questions interest me - and, of course, I'd like to have a job!
Lynda.com - is it a course or a resource? It's not just semantics, and though it is a sliding scale the distinction is significant. It is a resource if it addresses specific tasks and can easily be used at point of need. If I were Lynda I would be making my 'courses' shorter and more task-specifc, since most learning is at point of need.
2) We are getting close to the fundamental difference here: a belief that the world is best organised hierarchically, 'top-down' vs the belief that emergent structures or 'wirearchies' work best. Hierarchical thinking is very deeply embedded, I find. There will be examples either way, but I thought this video was very interesting: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D41QKeKQ2O3E
3) What would it take for me to accept that I am wrong? I suppose if I looked at people - people who now have more choice than ever about how they learn - and discovered that they were electing to take and create courses in preference to other formats. But they are not. Why are kids who we subjected to courses, not creating courses for each other? The opposite is happening. Research suggests that formal learning only forms about 10-15% of organisational learning. Now you might argue that this is nevertheless a vital component, and that is something that could be researched. You might also argue that 'formal learning' is to narrow a definition of course - but if you have to start to redefine a course in informal terms - stories & role-play & simulation for example, then I sort of feel that my job is done: these are context- not content-centric learning formats.
We learn the Highway Code to pass the test. Then we forget most of it. Most learning happens 'on the job' - I.e. As we are driving with the instructor. I would not be a worse driver had I never memorised chunks of the Highway Code - I forgot everything I learned that way, after all.
Hi Nick - Sorry I called you Neil earlier.
ReplyDeletePerhaps that's where we differ. I don't really want to think ahead. I want to think about now. I certainly hope universities will be different, and I can tell you lots of things that I would do now to change them, but this would all be based on what's needed now - not the future.
I think FE and HE numbers are up. Certainly much higher than 30 years ago. BBC: This current total estimate of 49% set to enter higher education compares with 43% in 2006-07.
For me, Lynda.com has courses - but of course you can dip in and use them as a resource. I see a course as having an organising principle and therefore a path/course you follow - that doesn't mean that's the route you necessarily take in the end, or where you end up, but that's your intention at the beginning. I know the word is used in all sorts of ways, but if the videos were just resources and not held together in any way, they would be far less useful in my opinion.
Most of Lynda's movies are about 3-5 minutes - just about the right length I think - and as I said, you can use them anyway you want.
No, I don't think it's hierarchy v wirearchy. I think you tend to focus on more discrete points of learning - whereas I'm maybe towards the art end of the continuum.
One way of answering the question at the end of the video would be, well no one would have turned up and if they had, they wouldn't have known what to do. The guy leading the session was, well... the leader.
Ever since I started teaching we used stories, simulations, games... whatever we could as a part of courses. I'm sorry they are not content nor context-centric, they are tools.
I had 8 hours with a driving instructor, so very little time spent on the highway code, but that really wasn't the point I was making. If you hadn't even learnt the basics, implicitly or explicitly you certainly wouldn't be a good driver. Again I think you are focussing on discrete facts rather than the whole picture.
Formal learning is not the same as a course. That's just reminded me. I worked on an elearning course for ship operators, for BP 10-12 years ago. One thing that BP said they learnt at that time was that there was no consistency in procedures as everyone was learning on the job from different people. We constantly had to change the content as procedures were slowly standardised. This was seen as a positive thing at the time.
I don't think anyone's denying the OTJ training is important or plays a large part. In America large firms often want liberal arts students that have a good all round education which they can then build on. Anyone who's watched children at play can see them learning, all I'd say is remember what you don't know (docta ignorantia).