Download a Word file of this page

 

E-Learning: Challenging the Statistics

Contributed by: Susan Stamm

Leaving Orlando’s ASTD conference this year (2001), I was determined to "test" e-learning against the wonderful claims its’ proponents offered. The statistics I encountered were so impressive; they seemed just a little too good to be true. Here is a summary of data presented at a session presented by MOHR Learning’s Stephen Pechter on e-Learning versus traditional classroom learning.

Learning Gains	55-65% Greater
Consistency of Learning	50-60% Better
Delivery Variance	20-40% Less
Training Compression	38-70% Faster
Learning Curve	50-70% Faster
Content Retention	25-50% Better

When I was approached recently by Millersville University’s Housing Department for supervisory training for their incoming Graduate Assistants (GA’s), I found an opportunity to test drive this training medium and gather some data of my own.

Ten GA’s were enrolled for three modules, which we would be delivering over a day and a half. The time needed to complete the three programs totaled 11 hours. We were scheduled for 8 hours of classroom time but ended up with seven and half-hours (due to an air-conditioning crisis).

A Blended Learning "Time" Solution

We opted to offer a coaching module as a blended learning course to ease the time crunch we faced. The GA’s completed the knowledge portion of the coaching course over the internet. The following day, less than two hours were available for behavioral modeling. Students used real life situations to practice the model in the classroom and demonstrate skill and understanding. Each student had the chance to function as team leader, team member and observer in three unique scenarios. I felt confident pushing them into the practice session with minimal discussion of the model because I knew they had demonstrated a 70% overall understanding, with seven of the ten having achieved an understanding score of greater than 90%. Here is a summary of their results.

Class Report

 

Not only did the students do very well with the online component of this training, but they offered positive comments about the experience. Dave Marascio noted some of the features that appealed to him that a traditional classroom does not offer:

"I enjoyed the e-learning experience because it allowed me to learn the material at my own pace. I could skim through the stuff I was most familiar with, and in turn, reread material that I didn't understand the first time it was taught." Tara Stoppa shared "The one thing that struck me was the integrated approach of the online course. It was very interactive in the sense that not only was there didactic material being presented, but also an Audio-Visual component, and pre/post tests. So, it wasn't passive in any sense, mirroring a veritable active classroom experience. I thought it was a really great idea."

Revisiting the Statistics

We began this discussion with statistics that seemed too good to be true. While claims that e-learning can reduce training time up to 70% are appealing, I found them hard to believe. This is where the MU case study enlightened me. To have delivered the coaching course entirely in the classroom, we would have added an additional two hours. Multiply the two hours by ten students and you have twenty classroom hours. The campus administrative software revealed that the GA’s spent a total of just 5.7 hours taking the online portion of the course, a savings of 14.3 classroom hours, or a reduction of 72%. Interestingly, 30% of the students took more than one "stab" at the final test to increase their final test scores and understanding, another feature uniquely available to e-learners. Not only did our experience validate the claims related to time, we actually beat the claims by 2%!

Final Thoughts

One may argue that graduate students are, as a group, more motivated to "do" e-learning, and I would agree. But, I would also argue that part of the ticket in having total participation and the results that were achieved at MU was based on two key factors.

 

1. The students were given the time to do this. They were actually scheduled to be on the internet taking the course at a given time. There was support.

    

    

2. They knew that they were coming into the classroom to demonstrate their learning. There was accountability.

 

Do I think that e-learning is "The Answer?" No, I do not. I do think that it is especially viable when it exists along-side classroom practice, and accountability measures are built-in. Can e-learning reduce time and, therefore, the total cost of training? Definitely yes! Should we all go gather our own data and see for ourselves? Absolutely for sure! Rather then be skeptical, be curious and challenge the data. I did and discovered a whole new learning medium that meets the challenges of time and delivery in today’s work communities.

Susan Stamm is a Partner in The TEAM Approach®, a consulting firm based in Lancaster County PA, and can be reached at susan@teamapproach.com or by calling 800/864-4911