Harnessing live online learning

2011 Research Study into Virtual Learning

My instinct is always to mistrust and challenge statistics. If you read my April 2010 blog Straight and Crooked Thinking, then you’ll recognise why I say this. But, I have just finished reading Harnessing Online Learning, a benchmark report by Towards Maturity, for Redtray. I am surprised to find myself so ready to accept its compelling findings and the conclusions that it reaches.

Devil’s Advocate

The voice of The Devil’s Advocate is seldom silent. It’s running a script in my head right now – first, the much quoted, “There are lies, dammed lies and statistics”, most commonly associated with Mark Twain. Then the much misquoted, “Well, he would, wouldn’t he?” which was the response of the notorious Mandy Rice Davies to Lord Astor’s denial that he had ever met her. Nevertheless, fearlessly fired by the TM report, I’ll make two bold assertions:

  1. The benefits of live online learning are proven, (“Lies, damned lies and statistics”, says The Voice).
  2. More organisations should be doing it, and doing it better, too! (I’ll declare an interest -Onlignment is a supplier of advice and skill development in this area, so, go on Voice, “He would (say that), wouldn’t he?”).

I’ve pre-empted the objections and got my retaliation in first, because it would be an opportunity lost if scepticism were to cloud (deliberate choice of word) the significance of the trends that Towards Maturity has charted. Let’s open up the report and delve a little deeper behind the headlines.

The accelerated pace of adoption

Should we be surprised that the adoption of live online technology for communication and learning has accelerated? I think not – after all the logistical and ecological arguments have always been there – travel is costly, potentially dangerous, time-consuming and inconvenient. Global organisations with a dispersed workforce find it awkward to bring people together for training and to improve operational effectiveness. We all must protect the Planet.

The absence of “hard data”

TM’s report has some numbers to validate these long-held assumptions. And yet those numbers are a measure of individuals’ perceptions. The Report expressed “shock” that only 13% of respondents were able to quantify even the simplest of comparative cost-benefits with hard data. How much had they saved on travel and subsistence; how many hours of trainers’ and learners’ productive time? I was not shocked, especially when I reminded myself that the people who had given their time and opinions to this survey came from L&D, a fraternity that is not best known for its capacity to translate its product (training) into tangible, desirable benefits with indisputable numbers attached.

Declarations of faith

Still there were the conclusions for all to find. “What have you L&D advocates and enthusiastic adopters of live online learning done for your organisations?” one might ask. And what answer should we expect? Shall we hear, “Dunno?”, or shall we hear, “We’ve DEFINITELY reduced travel time and costs (more than 40% of us); we’ve COMPREHENSIVELY opened access to more learners (42%), we’ve EMPHATICALLY reduced the costs of training (35%), and SERIOUSLY improved the quality of training (23%).”

Hopes and expectations

The Poet warned us:

“Between the idea and the reality… falls the Shadow.”

T.S. Eliot. The Hollow Men.

In the TM Benchmark Report, 57% hoped to reduce the overall costs of training; 35% claimed to have achieved it. 66% aspired to improve the quality of training; 23% believed they have done so. Separate the reality from the idea, and what you have left is a profound belief that almost 1 in 4 users of live online technology for learning have raised the quality of training in their organisations, while reducing the cost. Worth having? I’d say so! Separate the fact from the opinion and there, gnawing into my consciousness is The Voice, asking me to show what criteria define “quality” and what measures “improvement” in these people’s estimation.

Factors getting in the way of success

An examination of the obstacles that seem to prevent organisations from using live online learning is revealing. Experienced users and newcomers alike recognised and reported on a gap in the skills of trainers. New initiatives were frustrated by the negative expectations of a target population. They had been disappointed by unsuccessful earlier forays by suppliers (presumably internal) who were not ready or equipped to manage the change. This makes very good reading indeed for one who supplies, as Onlignment does, direction, training, coaching and confidence-building in the areas of online learning and communication. But don’t shoot the messenger! This is the first time an unbiased and scientific report on this scale (180 participants from a range of organisational backgrounds) has been done in the UK. We should be glad of it, and look forward to regular updates to see how robust the forecasts will have been. If it is true (and I’d like to predict it is an under-statement) that the use of virtual classrooms is set to increase dramatically in the next 18 months, then we’d all better get on with preparing our tables in the face of “reluctance to shift to virtual” (52% in the Public sector), and despite anxiety about the security of “The Cloud” (variously between 43% and 75%).

The “old dispensation”

Apocryphal tales of success will help; sufficient volumes of Good News stories will make Live Online Learning feel more like a “Movement” and less like an organisational “lifestyle choice”. More than that, the conspicuous airing and sharing of ideas, examples and innovative approaches is likely to inspire others to broaden their concept of what you can do with these tools. Eliot’s poetry comes to mind again; this time I think of ”The Journey of the Magi”, where he describes the kings returning to their homes, no longer at ease with the way things used to be done, and the people that are still doing them the old way.

“We returned to our places, these Kingdoms, But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation, With an alien people clutching their gods.”

T.S. Eliot “The Journey of the Magi”

The report shows that there are still lots of presentations, demonstrations and briefings going on. I want to stimulate, see, copy and share great ways of working live online to engage, enthuse and commit people to learn from tutors, peers and materials, and to build together new and better ways of doing their jobs. Behind those assertions that the quality of training was improved, I detect a shift towards live online learning being a prompt to check that “L&D” is delivering what learners need, and not just what Training is best-placed to deliver. I want to identify and congratulate those with the vision and courage to embrace live online learning as a new rubric.

Come out, come out, wherever you are!

We need to hear more from the pioneers who are discovering ways of intensifying the learner experience online rather than making compromises to mirror the old way of doing things and shoehorn unsuitable teaching and learning transactions into an unnatural medium. Most of all, we need a steady flow of believable numbers, but not just to show comparative cost- saving. I can deliver rubbish to you fast and efficiently, or slow and laboriously; which would you prefer? I want to see the £, $ and EUR recovered through increased optimism, improved efficiency and operational effectiveness.

Social networking is fast becoming ubiquitous

Further evidence of the near universal appeal of social media comes in the form of a new report from Neilsen, which shows Internet usage in April of this year. According to the report:

  • Worldwide, 22% of all online time is spent social networking.
  • Three quarters of all Internet users visit a social networking site when they log on (that’s 24% more than just last year).
  • The average user is spending 66% more time on these sites than a year ago, which amounts to some six hours a month.
  • Australians spend the most time networking, followed by Americans and Italians. Don’t ask me why.
With social media practically ubiquitous, the pressure will inevitably mount for similar functionality to be present in enterprise systems. Surely connecting with people to share information and solve problems is even more vital at work than it is when we get back home.

How long does it take to develop one hour of training?

People often ask how long it takes to develop one hour of self-study e-learning. The answers vary wildly, from under 50 hours to more than 300, depending on the amount of research that is needed, the complexity of the interactions, the richness of the media, the capabilities of the authoring tool, and the experience of the designer. These figures nearly always surprise people, because they wouldn’t normally spend anywhere near this time developing for the classroom. However, because they have to stand alone, self-study materials are notoriously hard to develop and they can only therefore make economic sense when there’s a reasonably large audience of users. The estimates are also open to question on the basis that self-pacing is, by definition, variable – what’s one hour for one learner, is 20 minutes for a second, and 2 hours for a third.

However, with live online learning, the concept of ‘one hour of e-learning’ really does make sense. An hour is an hour is an hour. That’s why I was interested to read the analysis by Karl Kapp (see Time to Develop One Hour of Training):

“In 2003, the low estimate for developing one hour of instructor-led, web-based training delivery (using software such as Centra, Adobe Connect, or WebEx) was 30 hours and the high estimate was 80 hours. In 2009, the low estimate is 49 and the high estimate 89. Both higher. Is it taking us longer to develop e-learning than it did six years ago?”

These figures are low compared with self-paced e-learning but higher than I would have expected. I can’t quite see why it takes 1-2 working weeks to assemble a really good hour of training. Am I missing something here? What’s your experience?

Increasing use of web conferencing for sales training

Increasing sales effectiveness with online training, a new report from Citrix Online, highlights just what an important role web conferencing is playing in sales training. Using data from a recent Manasco Marketing Group survey, the report shows there is a significant rise in the number of sales organisations that rely on online training to stay competitive:

  • “The survey data reveals a considerable jump in the number of sales organizations that are conducting online training (54 percent last year compared to 70 percent this year).”
  • “56 percent report that they have integrated onsite and online training for sales development.”
  • “Online training is more frequently utilized for product updates and refresher sales training.”
  • “Organisations are more than twice as likely to hold sales development activities more often when they utilise online training. A full 20 percent of respondents report that they conduct online training sessions once a week or once every two weeks.”
  • “The survey results presented a nearly universal consensus – with 94 percent of respondents in agreement – that limiting disruptions to the sales process is an important consideration when designing a sales training program. And for 78 percent of respondents, travel costs also play a significant role in making sales training decisions.”
With most sales staff based away from a central office, it’s easy to see why online training is likely to be popular for this audience. Nevertheless, in my experience, this is a tough and demanding audience to work with, so it’s encouraging to see how successfully this change has been implemented.

Brain rules for the virtual classroom

Recently I conducted an in-depth review of John Medina’s book Brain Rules for my personal blog, Clive on Learning. I took my time over this because John’s analysis of the applications of neuroscience to education and training was so far-reaching. I looked at each of John’s rules in turn, assessing the implications for workplace learning in general. The purpose of this post is to explore the ideas in a more restricted context, the facilitation of virtual classrooms.

For each rule, click on the link to see the original posting.
So we learn much more effectively when we’re on the move. Implications for the virtual classroom? I would imagine it’s impractical for participants to use a mouse and headset when exercising, so I’d probably keep sessions short and encourage participants to exercise in the breaks. Some chance.
Without good facilitation, there is a risk of relationships breaking down, perhaps because one person tends to dominate or behave aggressively.The implication for the virtual classroom is to choose facilitators carefully for their empathetic ability and then provide them with the training they need to handle problems diplomatically and sensitively. Given you can’t see your learners, how do you pick up on potential problems? How do you deal with a difficult participant without embarassing them in front of their peers?
All learners are different and that makes it hard for the facilitator of any live session to ensure every participant achieves their objectives. In the virtual classroom that means keeping class sizes small, so facilitators stand a better chance of understanding and reacting to the differences inherent in every learner. It could mean running special sessions forlearners that are behind the pack. It also places a premium on the use of polls and other survey tools that provide you with more information about the group you’re working with.
You’ll achieve nothing if you haven’t captured the attention of your audience. The best way to capture attention is with an emotionally-arousing experience of some sort – perhaps an anecdote, a surprising fact, a scenario, an activity – that is relevant to the point you will be making.
Even if you do manage to capture the audience’s attention, you’ll have lost it within 10 minutes if you don’t stimulate a fresh emotional arousal. In the virtual classroom it will make sense to start with an overview and provide regular progress updates. And in each 10 minute block, concentrate on a single key point.
If you want people to remember something, make sure they understand it. Facilitators should make liberal use of relevant, real-world examples.
Retrieval works best when the environmental conditions at retrieval mimic the environmental conditions at encoding. If this is true, then the most effective environment in which to learn would be on-the-job, which for many virtual classroom participants will be where they will be!
A key lesson here is to present important information repeatedly over time, elaborating on it as you do so. Where possible, build on the learner’s prior knowledge, rather than presenting new information in isolation. Provide opportunities for reflection and/or discussion immediately following the session, perhaps using an asynchronous medium, such as a forum.
So, getting the right amount of sleep is critical to the brain’s functioning, including learning; we differ in how much sleep we need and this varies at different times in our lives; we could all do with a nap in the afternoon. The implications for the virtual classroom? Well, perhaps you should avoid sessions mid-afternoon. You might also find that some participants take advantage of the fact that you can’t seethem to catch up on their sleep during particularly boring sessions!
There’s no real harm in a a learning intervention causing a little stress in learners, so long as this is very moderate and short-lived. A small degree of peer pressure would be a good example. What we don’t want is to stress our learners out. I reckon that a great many classroom events, particularly those that are highly interactive, stress out learners too much because the degree of peer pressure is too high – the learner may be terrified of embarrassing themselves. Live events may also be stressful because they attempt to cover too much information too quickly and the learner simply cannot keep up.
Medina draws heavily on the work conducted by Richard Mayer on the link between multimedia and learning. At the most simple level, Mayer concluded that “students learn better from words and pictures than from words alone.” Facilitators of virtual classroom events should try to avoid the most common sins, i.e. delivering two sources of verbal information simulataneously (typically voice and a lot of text on the screen) or two visual sources (say graphics and video). The brain can only comfortably pay attention to one visual and one verbal channel at a time.
Visual aids are not an optional extra; they are usally helpful and sometimes essential. It does matter what pictures you use – different types of information require different types of visuals to convey meaning most clearly. While more abstract information is harder to convey pictorially, it is worth the effort. However, better no picture than one that just fills a space and conveys an inappropriate meaning.
This may be the case, but I struggle to find any implications for the virtual classroom facilitator. In many cases, you can only tell who’s male and who’s female by the name on the participant list.
When it comes to more formal learning interventions, we sometimes seem to conspire to minimise the possibilities for exploration and reflection – the dominant strategy continues to be structured instruction, regardless of the suitability to the requirement. Guided discovery is more engaging and more rewarding, particularly when the participants have plenty of experience to draw upon and share. Probably learners would like a balance between the two. They appreciate the opportunities to reflect and explore, particularly collaboratively, but they also quite like to be able to draw upon expert experience from time to time. This is entirely an issue of pedagogy – virtual classrooms are neutral on this issue and can support each approach equally.

So are webinars effective?

The Webinar Blog recently completed a small survey of 50 organisations, mostly from the USA, on the effectiveness of webinars. Asked whether they formally measure webinar effectiveness, 32% of respondents answered ‘always’, 16% ‘frequently’ and 26% ‘occasionally’. So whay isn’t effectiveness measured in every case? Of those who do not measure, 46% said it was too hard to establish measurable criteria, 36% said the results cannot be clearly linked to the webinar and 30% said that nobody has asked for it!

Of those who do measure, 40% found that webinar benefits definitely outweigh the costs and 30% felt they probably did. The remaining 30% did not know, which is strange given that they do the measuring. Those who did no formal measurement were asked for their gut feel about whether benefits outweighted costs. Of these 43% said ‘definitely’ and 45% said ‘probably’.