Resource: Strother, Judith, 2002, ‘An Assessment of the Effectiveness of e-learning in Corporate Training Programs‘, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol. 3, no 1.
Considering that this article was written nearly a decade ago, I believe that the questions raised about how effectively e-learning programmes are/can be measured to actually support the assumptions that e-learning is cost-effective, convenient, allows for standardised delivery and provides an avenue for self-paced learning is still very relevant. Strother believes ‘if corporations can get all the advantages of e-learning with the same level of results as an instructor-led classroom situation, then the economic advantage for e-learning becomes even stronger’. She is keen, however to emphasis that it is difficult to find ‘solid research measuring learner achievement in specialised setting of corporate training program’ to conform that learners are actually acquiring and using the skills that are being taught online and that e-learning is the best way to achieve the outcomes adequate for such an environment.
This paper acknowledges that for any learning, it is important that:
- good learning objectives and course relevance exist;
- good data gathering and reporting and reviewing is conducted;
- evidence of an increased capacity of the benefits of learning is displayed; and
- the process be considerate of personal characteristics of learning ie motivation, trainability, job attitude, etc.
As a team, the trainers in our organisation are constantly aware that we need to provide effective and efficient training to our ‘customers’, ie the staff in our firm – a prospective I believe would be of prime importance for any in-house trainers/instructors in any learning environment, not just a corporate environment. Flexible working arrangements, secondments to other organisations/countries and working remotely while travelling are having a huge impact on how decisions are made when considering the mode of delivery and organisation of training.
Like many corporation organisations, I believe that our decision to offer a blended learning approach ie traditional classroom delivery + elearning (primarily online tutorials) if primarily based on needs by an organisation to try and support the notion of training ‘anywhere anytime’. Is this the most effective choice? How did we justify what mode to use for what particular training? Are we evaluating the cost of training against the benefit of the training outcomes?
Strother alludes to the dilemma facing trainers with regard to decisions made about offering a blended learning approach. She acknowledges that many trainers not only find it difficult to find an optimal blend but also what is decided, is often based on what the trainers, themselves are familiar with – not necessarily, concrete information about which programs actually produce effective results.
In the role that I have in my organisation, I was particularly interested in the questions raised by Strother:
- Does e-learning really make training more cost-effective than tradition training?
- How can this be evaluated?
- Do you evaluate e-learning differently from the evaluation process of tradition training?
- Is there a measure of quality learning happening in areas that really matter?
- How systematic are e-learning results being analysised and correlated?
I believe that such questions would be very relevant for people with similar roles to myself as well as trainers/practitioners in any organisation or learning environment and consequently such questions are very important when training alternatives are being discussed and implemented.
In this endeavour, Strother suggests that any learning (e-learning or tradition) can be evaluated using Kirkpatrick’s classic model:
Level 1 – Reaction ie how learners’ reactions to course;
Level 2 – Learning ie what they learned ie principles, facts and techniques;
Level 3 – Transfer/Behaviour ie changes in behaviour when they return to the job after training; and
Level 4 – Results ie the possible business outcomes that have occurred because those who attended training, have now decided to do their jobs differently.
With e-learning, when the assumption of cost effectiveness comes into play, Strother believes (citing Phillips) that the inclusion of a fifth level of evaluation should be included – ROI (Return on Investment). This involves converting the data gained in Level 4 into monetary values and then comparing that to the cost of the training.
I found this article very thought provoking and I believe that the focus on questioning the assumption drawn from current research that emulates the effectiveness of e-learning is very important. How can this effectiveness be considered a good and reasonable basis for the implementation of e-learning when there are still questions about how a true measurement can be evaluated?
References:
Hodges, Allie, 2008, ‘A Literature Review on E-Learning and Its Effectiveness in Corporate Training Programs’, viewed on 19 March, 2010, http://allisonhhodges.com/CAT689-2/689.2%20LitRev.doc
Lee, Kar-tin, 2005, ‘E-Learning: The Quest for Effectivenss’, Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology, vol 2, no 2, pp 61-71, http://pppjj.usm.my/mojit/articles/pdf/August05/06-Article-036-Kar%20Tin%20Lee-Hong%20Kong.pdf
McAlister, Khris M., Rivera, Julio C. & Hallam, Stephen F., 2001, ‘Twelve Important Questions to Answer Before You Offer a Web Based Curriculum’, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/mcalister42.html
Stother, Judith B. & Alford, Randall L., 2001, ‘E-Learning for Corporate Training: A Review of the Literature’, viewed on 18 March 2010, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.94.5614&rep=rep1&type=pdf
1 Comment »
Filed under: ELE2
