Putting the “e” in Learning
e-Learning seems to be gaining ground. Not only are e-learning vendors increasing in number, budgets for e-learning courses are also on the rise. Some organizations are even creating e-learning teams or units specifically for the creation of e-courses. But there are concerns about this learning modality from those who have yet to implement it: Should I go into e-learning? For those who are already implementing it: what factors should I have considered?
To help answer these questions, let us compare e-learning to the more familiar face-to-face training.
Investment
e-learning involves a comparatively heavier upfront investment compared to the traditional face-to-face (f2f) training. The high fixed costs can be attributed to the amount of preparation time to gather the information, development of the appropriate material, and the infrastructure required for deployment.
e-learning’s investment can be justified if:
- there is a big learning population
- logistical cost of training (travel, lodging, food) is significant
Convenience
The challenge of f2f training is gathering the participants in one location, which involves finding a common time among them, as well as ensuring that there is no pressing requirement in the workplace. This situation also applies to internal Subject Matter Experts who are assigned to train in addition to performing their main jobs.
e-learning can address this issue if self-paced approach is used (Note that e-learning may require all participants to be online at the same time, called “synchronous” approach).
Effectiveness
There are certain learning requirements that e-learning is suitable for. It is usually a recommended methodology for “know what” types of knowledge, and “know how” in using systems or applications. If the learning objective is requires analysis, judgment, and proposing solutions, the common e-learning approaches fall short of delivering these.
It is a misconception to use existing f2f training slides as self-paced e-learning material. In the former, an instructor is present to elaborate on what may not be clear in the visuals. This is not true of the latter, where there is no immediate clarification available, thus, hampering the learning process.
Going Beyond Investment
Almost all L&D practitioners have heard of the lament of slow uptake from those implementing e-learning. Is there a way for this to be avoided? For those who have decided from the foregoing considerations that e-learning would make sense for their organization, the next step is to think of how to make it work. This can include:
- How do you encourage the shift from f2f to online? Do not just hope that they will want to learn online; create ways for your learners to “need” the e-learning material.
- Going into e-learning can be done in varying degrees of intensity. Given your audience profile, will it be better to conduct e-learning on the preparatory knowledge only, or should you go into the discussions online as well?
- Consider what you mean by e-learning. Do you really want to put everything online and make these self-paced? (If so, think about how it will affect Effectiveness vs. Cost). Or is Blended Learning (combining different modalities) what you really aim for?
e-learning is part of the bigger picture in delivering cost-effective performance solutions. It is not THE picture. Focus on planning the learning followed by how the “e” can make it happen. Most e-learning initiatives fail because they put the “e” above the learning.
