Is e-learning effective?

After 'Why is e-learning so unpopular?� and 'Will e-learning put me out of a job?', my focus today is on another question that I am frequently asked by l&d people: �Is e-learning effective?� A reasonable question, because there is no point in using a new approach if it doesn�t work, however much time or money it might save.

Unfortunately - as is so often the case - there is no easy answer. 

E-learning is just a medium

E-learning is a medium for learning, just like face-to-face communication, print, the telephone and countless other technologies. In other words, it is a delivery channel. On balance, the evidence would suggest that the medium, the delivery channel, is much less important in determining effectiveness than the learning strategy you choose to address the task in hand (exposition, instruction, guided discovery, exploration, etc.), the social context in which the medium is used (self-study, one-to-one, group) and, indeed, the relevance and importance of the subject matter on which you are focusing. Thomas L Russell reviewed 355 research reports, summaries and papers that documented no significant differences in student outcomes between alternate modes of education delivery. It is the method that matters when it comes to effectiveness, not the medium.

However, e-learning is a medium which opens up the possibility for methods that would otherwise be impractical or impossible to deliver using traditional means. Let�s take two examples:

• The Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) makes it possible for many thousands of students to learn together at the same time. While the underlying pedagogy of a MOOC can, in some cases, resemble that of a traditional course, the sheer scale of the endeavour and the opportunities that this provides for peer interaction make the MOOC something very different from what we have ever been able to experience face-to-face.
• An immersive and highly-realistic training tool, such as a flight simulator, has no meaningful traditional equivalent other than practice in the real world.

In both of these cases, e-learning is providing something different from what we had before. You cannot dismiss it as �just another medium� because the medium has made possible the method, just as the invention of the printing press made it possible for the population as a whole to learn by reading.

E-learning supports many methods

To answer the question, we also have to qualify the type of e-learning that we are talking about. Do we mean instructional tutorials delivered for the individual learner? Live group sessions in a virtual classroom? The delivery of online content using web sites, video, podcasts, etc? Collaborative, distance learning like the MOOC described above? The only characteristic these approaches have in common is that they use the same delivery channel - a computer network. In all other respects they are radically different.

Let�s take the first of these approaches, the self-study tutorial, because that�s what most workplace l&d people associate with the term �e-learning�. The Towards Maturity Impact Indicator released in March 2010 and based on UK findings, demonstrated many real benefits of e-learning to employers. However, the majority of the indicators related to efficiencies, i.e. time and cost savings, convenience and scalability. None of these really indicate the effectiveness of the approach in terms of impact on individual performance, when compared to alternative approaches.

It depends what you use it for

I�m not sure where we�ve got to in answering the question. Is e-learning effective? To the extent that a medium can make much of a difference to outcomes, it would seem that much depends on the type of e-learning and the use to which it is put. And that�s an issue to which I will return next time.

goalgetter - assisting the transfer of learning

goalgetter, launched this week, is a goal-based learning system designed to help people put their learning into practice and achieve their goals. Now I have to admit an interest here because goalgetter is the brainchild of Rob Hubbard, a colleague of mine and my successor as chair of the eLearning Network. Rob is an excellent designer and a real innovator, so I feel compelled to use this blog to tell you about what he's up to with this product.

goalgetter is Rob's attempt to solve the problem of transfer of learning. When we're exposed to interesting ideas, we naturally want to put them into practice in our own lives, but good intentions all too often evaporate when we're confronted with all those day-to-day pressures. What goalgetter does is to work with you, like a virtual coach, to help you set goals for changed behaviour, provide you with tips and advice, suggest practical activities that will encourage skills development, and then follow up to see how you're getting on.

According to the blurb, it can be 'accessed from computer, tablet or smartphone and allows users to connect socially to other people attempting the same goal. It includes a mini 360-degree training needs analysis tool so users can identify their areas for development and track their progress, a library of resources which offer user-rated, real-world activities for users to complete, and supporting material delivered as text, images and video. goalgetter can be used standalone of content delivery and learning implementation and also works well as part of a blend of teaching methods (for example as an implementation and support system bolted on to face-to-face workshops.'

I had a play with the beta, and worked on a personal goal to help improve the way I handle email. The experience was fun and productive. I can see lots of applications in the work I do and would recommend you take a look.

European survey shows growth in coaching and blended learning

Cegos has just published its latest annual pan-European learning and development survey. The survey was carried out among 2,800 employees and 600 HR Directors/Training Managers from a cross-section of organisations in the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands.

The survey includes a question about the types of learning methods and media that respondents have experienced in the past year, which gives a useful indicator of trends. In some areas, such as classroom training and the use of live and self-paced e-learning, there has been little change in the past year. The most notable increases have come in the use of coaching (up from 35% to 47%) and of blended solutions, particularly in the UK. There has also, unsurprisingly, been some growth in the use of mobile learning, which has been used by one in four respondents, and of serious games, while companies continue to experiment with social learning tools.

The findings also show that employees are on the whole happy with the training they receive, regardless of the method or medium being used, believing that their employers are making a real effort to identify and respond to their needs.

That's not such a bad picture considering resources are so strained.

Will e-learning put me out of a job?

After last week's 'Why is e-learning so unpopular?', I turn today to another question I am frequently asked by l&d people: 'Will e-learning put me out of a job?' In fact, when I think about it, the question is only rarely asked, but is frequently considered. And you can understand why. In most occupations in which technology has had an important influence - and that means most of them - it has proved a highly disruptive influence. Technology introduces efficiencies and makes possible new and improved ways of working, and these will inevitably require shifts in the way jobs are organised and in the skills required of the job holders. It removes the need for some old jobs and introduces some new ones. If you're involved in making these changes happen, then this process could be seen as exciting more than threatening, but if these changes are imposed on you, then you are going to run scared. As they say, people don't resist change, they resist being changed.

Leaving aside the emotional issues, is there a rational case for resistance? Do learning technologies really threaten l&d jobs? While it's tempting (but rather patronising) to be reassuring, I' afraid I have to say 'yes'.

In some ways this has already occurred. In many organisations, up to 50% of all l&d jobs have in the past been administrative - booking people on courses, sending out joining instructions, adding up the scores on the happy sheets. If these tasks haven't been automated by LMSs and other online tools by now, you'd have to ask why.

But the situation with 'professional' l&d jobs is more complex. Learning technologies can and will dramatically change the nature of the service provided by l&d and the skills mix will be quite different. And here I have to define learning technologies very broadly to include not just self-paced e-learning but also virtual classrooms, electronic performance support, collaborative distance learning, mobile learning, games and simulations, as well as the many uses of social media. Classroom training will undoubtedly have a major role to play in the mix, but rather than being 90% or more of the offering, it may well be 40% or less. That's a problem if you have a team of classroom trainers who only really want to be classroom trainers.

Let's say you are a classroom trainer. So, what are your options? Well, if you're really, really good at this and are making a real difference, then you could just carry on; after all, no-one's saying we will abandon the classroom altogether. That does not mean ignoring technology completely, because there are many good ways of using computers in the classroom that don't involve endless PowerPoint bullet point slides, and virtual classrooms will allow you to extend your reach significantly. But even so the job stays very similar in nature.

On the other hand, you may be someone who really likes making things; you have the imagination, the attention to detail, the analytical ability and the communication skills to create the sort of digital learning content - web resources, videos, podcasts, tutorials, quizzes, slide shows - that really engage learners. If this sounds like you, then there will be no shortage of demand for your skills. If, however, you have no interest or aptitude for this type of work, I'd steer well clear, because no amount of training is going to make you into a content designer.

And there will be some demand for competent tutors, who can act as coaches, curators, assessors and moderators of online and blended programmes. This role draws upon many of the skills you may already have as a 'guide on the side', but will certainly not require you to be a 'sage on the stage'.

Of course, it may be you never set foot in a classroom - you may be a consultant who interacts with internal or external 'clients', investigates and interprets their needs and proposes solutions. This job would seem safe, and in many ways it is - but only to the extent that you are able to work with a greatly increased toolkit. If the extent of your responsibility has been to determine whether the client needs a one-day course or a two-day, who should run it and where (and I know this is an unfair simplification) then your job suddenly got a whole lot more difficult. If you can't make sensible choices from all the traditional and new media alternatives (often in the form of sophisticated blends, bringing together the formal, non-formal, on-demand and experiential) then you're not going to hack it. First you have to recognise the need to up-skill (which means getting out of the denial stage), then you have to want to do this (you could get another job, after all), and then you have to get on with it.

Although I've outlined plenty of options for a way forward, there will undoubtedly be casualties - indeed, there already have been plenty as employers have cut back significantly on spend. There will not be a return to the 'good old days', so now is the time to make a decision. Embrace technology or try and find a job that technology has yet to reach. That's if you can find one.

Why is e-learning so unpopular?

Over the years I have spent many thousands of hours in conversations with l&d people. As you would expect, there is some commonality in the sorts of questions I get asked. Over the next few weeks, I am going to try and answer those questions in a series of posts, not because I have any problem with answering the questions directly, but for the benefit of all those l&d people whom I never get to meet.

The first is: Why is e-learning so unpopular?

In reality, this sentiment is not always expressed as a question. It�s just as likely to be phrased as �I don�t like it�. Either way, it deserves a response.

First of all, some clarification. What type of e-learning are you talking about? Virtual classrooms? MOOCs? Online video? Podcasts? Games and simulations? No, that�s not what people mean. They mean instruction delivered in the form of interactive tutorials for the individual learner to complete at their own pace. What once was called computer-based training (CBT).

Then we need to check whether it really is unpopular and with whom. Well, clearly there are lots of success stories with e-learning and not all because of huge cost savings. Some e-learning is very popular because it is very well conceived and executed, it�s engaging, relevant and easy to use; but, let�s be honest, not many people would put it top of their list of favourite ways to learn - and particularly not l&d people, as the annual CIPD surveys tend to show.

Now l&d people have lots of reasons not to like e-learning, so we have to be careful about taking their opinions too much to heart. After all, unless they are actively engaged in some aspect of learning technologies, they probably see it as one hell of a threat (a topic I�ll be taking up in a future post). There�s also a danger that they take it upon themselves to speak for others who actually have very different opinions.

But we need to answer the question. Given that some e-learning is unpopular with some people - and I think we can all agree on that - then why is that the case and what can we do about it?

• Is it because it only works for people with some learning styles? No, I hear that all the time and it�s a rather feeble excuse. Even if we could agree on some reliable way to categorise people�s learning preferences, I doubt if it would help us to understand their reaction to e-learning. A much more useful indicator is prior knowledge, on the basis that those with a greater understanding of a topic will find the rigid format of structured instruction rather frustrating - they�d probably prefer just to get the information straight.
• Is it because it requires people to do too much reading? Possibly, for some people, although e-learning doesn�t have to involve a lot of reading. If the learner is quite happy reading magazines or books, then the problem is unlikely to lie in too many words. To call e-learning a �page turner� is derogatory; but a novel that�s a 'real page turner' is a hit. On the other hand, reading from a screen is more tiring, so very wordy e-learning might be to blame in some cases.
• Is it because the process of self-study is isolating? I don�t think this is a problem in short bursts, i.e. an hour or two here or there, but protracted self-study is unlikely to be many people�s preference. Why? Because, we are social creatures, and we like to share, reflect, compare, clarify, discuss, dispute and gain feedback. Self-study in a blend is fine. Self-study as the sole medium has limited application.
• Is it because the subject matter is not interesting or relevant? Now we�re talking. I don�t know what proportion of e-learning is mandatory, regulatory training of some sort, but it�s a lot. Unless this type of training is incredibly well designed and delivered it is going to be resisted or, at best, tolerated. If e-learning is associated closely with compliance, it will be unpopular.
• Is it because of the way the subject is put across? Possibly; in some cases because it is unprofessionally presented, though this is not such a major factor; in some cases because of poor usability; much more likely is that it is presented in what Cathy Moore calls �corporate drone� and is lifeless, abstract and devoid of meaningful context.
• Is it unpopular because that�s the prevailing view? Perhaps. Peer opinion is powerful. It�s hard to say you really like something if the view of the crowd is that it�s naff.

The thirty year legacy of self-paced e-learning being more bad than good is hard to overcome. If we think the instructional tutorial is worth persisting with as a form, then we certainly need a new name. More importantly, we need many more great examples of highly engaging, adaptive and relevant materials that we can use as a model and an opinion shaper. As ever, I�m still optimistic.