Daniel Lemire wrote a recent post, some myths about online teaching, based on his experiences in higher ed. I’ve bulleted his points below, but you really need to read Daniel’s commentary.
I think many of these myths can be applied to corporate e-learning. [blue is mine]
- Myth: Videocasting lectures/presentations works.
[As part of a blended experience OK, but not alone. I'm thinking here about a vodcast with group communication around its content. Or, a video in a classroom with active discussion.] - Myth: Posting lecture/presentation notes is pretty much good enough.
[Reading PowerPoint deck notes doesn't do much. Utilizing SlideShare though has been a nice supplement for my research.] - Myth: Online teaching is mostly good for introductory or low-level courses.
[Crazy talk! While I think introductory courses and basic pre-class work can be very good, I also think high-level courses can be taught online. Daniel talks about self-efficacy here which is very important.] - Myth: Online courses are OK for learning Microsoft Word, but you cannot possibly teach real science (which translates into higher thinking/very technical content in the corporate world).
[Crazy talk, part 2. As an online learner, I can attest to the difficult subjects I have worked through successfully online.]
- Myth: Online courses will empty the classrooms.
[American Society for Training & Development State of the Industry Report 2007 said ~60%-~65% training is ILT, face-to-face classroom-based. 'Nuf said.] - Myth: I do not have time for such nonsense as online teaching as I must focus on my research. (which translates into SMEs unwillingness in the corporate environment to train because they ‘have a job to do.’) [SMEs may come to the realization that online instruction is easier for them because it is flexible to their schedule.]
My mythical experiences with online learning in corporate education include:
- Myth: It takes less time to create an online course than a face-to-face course.Some courses I was involved in creating lasted longer than labor and delivery (and all I got was a lousy t-shirt). But wait! That’s because they needed to be. They were highly interactive with branching, audio, video, etc. And they were long. A different learning intervention might require less production. IT DEPENDS.
However, if you want some facts and figures, Bryan Chapman’s post, how long does it take to create learning provides some comparison ratios between ILT and various levels of e-learning that you will find helpful.
- Myth: You can “repurpose” [definition: to use or convert for use in another format or product] a face-to-face course and put it online. (look, the book is now on CD!)This, to me, is copy-and-paste e-learning. I can go to Amazon.com and order a book and read it. Or I can order a recorded book and have someone read it to me. It’s not learning. Reading the “script” of an ILT course is not online learning. However, creating a learning environment where people can discuss, rate, do additional research, etc. based the book….well, not so crazy.)
- Myth: Online learning costs less than face-to-face training. This got me thinking about Tom Kuhlmann’s excellent (as always) post several weeks ago, here’s why rapid e-learning is so darn cool, about empowering subject matter experts (SMEs). (Tom writes for Articulate, an e-learning authoring tool that can be used to create rapid e-learning).In Tom’s post and in the comments (in addition to my ‘who you callin’ a pundit?’ comment) there was some discussion of the cost of “custom content” created by an outside source (i.e., the “evil” vendor bwah-ha-ha-ha!). I shot off an email to my colleague Tom Werner, director of the Brandon Hall Research Excellence in Learning Awards, because I thought he could quickly get his hands on some numbers related to past custom e-learning entries (of which some are not expensive-to-produce-type e-learning courses that are often the subject of criticism). Tom gave me some figures and some variables to consider. (variables = the asterisk that is the common denominator of instructional design for online learning.)Some of Tom’s considerations relative to cost:
- whether the raw content itself is already available.
- the number of hours in the course.
- the level of interactivity.
- the type of media in the course (especially if video, games, or virtual environments are used).
- the size of the audience that the cost is spread over In the corporate environment.
Some Figures:
- On the high end, one of the gold award winner’s course cost $90K
- Customer Content Developers in our Custom Content KnowledgeBase report these averages for a hour of finished content (n = 110)
- Level 1 Interactivity (content with interactive test questions): average $15,067
- Level 2 Interactivity (content with at least 20% very interactive learning activities): average $24,672
- Level 3 Interactivity (simulation-based content): average $41,138
- Myth: Online learning = course / class. This suggests that all learning is ‘formal,’ something that is scheduled with a start/stop time. Online learning is so much more.
- Myth: You can teach anything online. Maybe you “can” (are able) but that doesn’t mean you should. Learning is not about the delivery channel.
- Myth: Face-to-face instruction is more effective than online learning. Actually, the research says there is no significant difference.
What myths have you encountered?
Workplace Learning Today
Subscribe by Email
Connect on Facebook
Connect on LinkedIn
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for this post Janet. Not only for the issues raised, but also it permitted me to discovered a fellow Montreal blogger
In December 2005 I wrote an article for my company’s newsletter entitled Assumptions about eLearning. Since then, I regularly look at it and reflect on whether or not any of these assumptions have changed. I see by your and Daniel Lemire’s post that many of the issues are still the same.
What I find interesting is that now the argument about cost has changed and it is eLearning that is less expensive. Three to five years ago, I had to show clients how, if you spread the costs of eLearning development over time, eLearning could be less expensive. Of course, with the arrival of rapid authoring tools, the tables are turning.
However, I still have to constantly remind people that creating a Las Vegas slide show isn’t interactive eLearning. There is still a lot of work to be done on that front.
Kristina Scheiders last blog post..Humour – A Viable Strategy for Diversity Training?
Kristina – I agree. The cost of elearning has been coming down and I think that will continue.
I think people often get an idea in their head that e-learning is supposed to look a certain way vs. what it is supposed to do – provide a delivery channel/platform for learning. That could be p2p video chat, this blog, or a highly interactive sim. It depends on what the designer needs the learner to do.
Thanks for your comment and the link to the article.
A great post, Janet. It’s ironic that obstacles to online learning come both from traditional thinking in other modes (it’s PowerPoint! it’s a classroom!) and from set-it-and-forget-it approaches to the online environment.
In the bad old days, people would enliven mainframe CBT by varying the wording used as a page turner. “Press enter to continue…Press F1 to continue…” Now we get people cramming concepts into a drag-and-drop because, well, dragging’s interactive, isn’t it?
Thanks for your comment Dave. So true. Thinking of interactive in a literal sense (they did something!) vs. interactive in the context of learning is a problem. I’ve always found that approaching design with “what do you want them to do?” is an effective approach.
I want them to ‘listen to this and look for that and then make a decision’ vs. I will use drag-and-drop and have them match something w/ a decision.
Great information and I’m particular interested about the research associated the last myth (there is no significant and measurable difference between ILT and E-Learning).
Where could one find the research that supports such a statement?
Hi Scott-
The “no significant difference” is a common finding in much of the research comparing instructional media. Overall, when comparing e-learning and classroom instruction that have similar instructional methods, there’s no significant difference in outcomes.
What’s important in this research is that it’s the instructional method, not the delivery medium that makes the difference.
A good source of information is a meta-analysis done by researchers, (Traci Sitzmann, Robert Wisher, Kurt Kraiger, and David Stewart, 2006), at the Department of Defense’s Advanced Distribute Learning Initiative (ADL) and the University of Tulsa. Their meta-analysis (analysis about prior analysis) of 96 previously conducted studies compared the effects of e-learning and classroom learning
E-learning and classroom learning were found to be equally effective when the content and learners were similar in both courses. The researchers also found that e-learning was more effective than classroom instruction when learners had more control over the content, sequence, or pace of the material.
So basically…”no significant difference” is pretty much what people accept. It’s the method, not the medium that makes the difference when it comes to comparing the effectiveness of instructional media.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118595222/abstract
Scott,
Also see summary…
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5366/is_200508/ai_n21376597
Scott,
And still more…
The meta-analysis also found that combining classroom and Internet components (blended learning) is more effective than stand-alone classroom instruction for teaching trainees job-relevant knowledge and skills.
Blended learning was 13% more effective than classroom instruction for teaching declarative knowledge and 20% more effective than classroom instruction for teaching procedural knowledge.
Janet,
Nice job framing each of those myths. I’m sharing these with a corporate client who’s tired of listening to his consultant, so I’ll bring in a researcher:-)
Will let you know how it goes…
Steve Roeslers last blog post..Technical Difficulties
Thanks Steve. Keep me posted.
Nice list. Another myth I am starting to run in to a lot is that “a blog makes a great replacement for the Learning Management System” or just the general thought that “_________ tool is the coolest thing so I have to use it in online learning.” One instructor where I work had a good, lively use of discussion boards in class. Then she found out about blogs and changed all discussion over to the blog – even though it was still for discussions. Then she found a wiki wool that she liked even better and started using that – as a discussion board (even though she was calling it a blog).
I always make a big argument for using tools for the right reason, so I find these myths to be a little annoying (see http://www.magnapubs.com/issues/magnapubs_ff/4_12/news/600974-1.html)
I will say about the myth that anything can be taught online. I am working on an online jogging class. Yep. And not in Second Life
Matt, I once saw someone become a better hula-hooper through an online class.
Message: It’s not the medium, it’s the method. We get in trouble when we put the medium first.
Just for clarication: I’m not sure from which award winning year you got the data, but it’s not consistent with the report I got from Brandon Hall for 2007. If I recall, the Michael Allen Terrorism course was well over $300,000. One of the Enspire courses was over 1800 hours. So that is more than the “$90,000 at the high end.”
In fact, my guess is that most of those courses when you look at the resources and development time cost in the neighborhood of $100K or more.
The other numbers are consistent with my experiences in other places of employment. However, we always seemed to get quotes in the $25K-$35K. I think they knew what our budget was.:)
Sorry Tom, your comment made it into the spam filter (147!). I’ll have to look up the Allen Interactions Terrorism course. It would not surprise me if there were some outliers. Same with LMSs – 15k – 2 mill.