Lies About E-Learning

Adding the letter "e" in front of any term triggers an avalanche of lies. For example: Email has made our organization so much more productive, or e-commerce will be the end of stores. The letter "e" brings a dot.com hyper-enthusiasm and hyper-cynicism to any process. The marketplace starts to lie to itself, as well as to investors and customers about the readiness and economic model of the new phenomena. The change-resistant adopter lies about how it will never work. The sentimentalist weaves lies about the effectiveness and efficiency of the good old days, and the futurist lies to audiences about how things will never be the same again. (I can plead guilty to that one on multiple counts!)

Lies about e-learning follow this pattern perfectly. They are reflective of both the optimism and naivete of the learning field. They have enabled large-scale experiments and implementations of new learning approaches on a worldwide basis. They have moved the active phrase in our field from training to learning. They have rapidly pushed early investments in learning management systems (LMSs). And, they have triggered an enterprisewide view of learning.

Thus, you see my perspective on lies about e-learning. Most are unintentional. Some have been downright helpful. I even confess to promulgating a few of them myself, being an early advocate of e-learning.

Lie 1: E-Learning Is New

Nope, e-learning has been around for a very long time. It started long before Al Gore or whoever invented the Internet. When Admiral Grace Hopper, the godmother of mainframe computing, saw her first system go live in 1944, she predicted that these new machines called computers would someday help teach sailors how to do their jobs. But, e-learning started earlier than that when the advent of commercial radio in the 1920s was accompanied by early experiments in delivering classroom lessons to the children of farmers in rural areas.

Certainly, the concept of e-learning derived from computer-based training (CBT). Structured and branched classes were designed and delivered first on mainframe computers and later on stand-alone personal computers and video disks. Next, CBT entered the network arena when shared courses started to be mounted on organizations' F drives. Finally, with the advent of the Internet, the phrase "e-learning" was introduced.

I can guess I was one of the first analysts and writers to start using the term e-learning. In the early 1990s, I used it as a prediction of the educational use of email and networks such as CompuServe. The key point is that e-learning was not an invention of the Internet. It has rich and important roots in decades of experimentation and deployment of technology to help create, deliver, inspire, and assess learning. Clearly, e-learning is also a derivative of the educational and pedagogical approaches of theorists including Dewey, Skinner, and Gagne.

This lie is important because too much of the dialog about e-learning has been with a historical basis. Deep research and practice about how learners process information, how competencies can be assessed, and how curriculum can be designed effectively are embedded in this lie. When the dot.com era hit, many folks jumped onto the e-learning bandwagon without any context or history. In fact, some of the lies of earlier learning technology rollouts were unknowingly repeated:

• Educational television will make the classroom obsolete.
• Overhead projectors will add excitement to the delivery of instruction.
• Computer-based instruction will dramatically lower the cost of training employees.

E-learning is a powerful and evolving set of tools and strategies. But, e-learning has a history and a set of forgotten historical perspectives. The future of e-learning cannot be invented if the past of e-learning is not acknowledged and taken into account.

Lie 2: E-Learning Works

This is a lie because there is an acute lack of reliable research and a large dose of fuzzy thinking about the actual effectiveness of specific e-learning programs. A large percentage of e-learning is effective with the right learners in the right situations, but some e-learning is just a digital page turner that does not result in knowledge acquisition or transfer. Unfortunately, many organizations and even suppliers do not fully understand the pattern of effectiveness of e-learning.

Before determined critics of e-learning start quoting this module as ammunition against e-learning, ask yourself if this sounds familiar: Classroom instruction works! It is often impossible to tell. And, the type of research that would give us greater confidence in the true effectiveness of a specific form of instructional delivery has not been invested in.

How and When Does E-Learning Work?

The answer to this question would be a great way of starting the conversation about its relative effectiveness. This approach acknowledges the varied effectiveness of different designs, content levels, learning activities, durations, assessment intensities, and job aids. A single company or instructional designer would gather great insight into the effectiveness of e-learning for his or her situation. Yet, as a field, a mechanism for addressing the ground truth of the efficacy of varied e-learning approaches is missing.

Why Does Lie 2 Get Promulgated?

Multiple factors are involved in the perseverance of this lie. Here are several reasons:

• Completion data is a false positive. Large numbers of e-learning deployments measure the quantity of completions. This is increasing in the age of compliance, as organizations are turning to e-learning to create legal coverage against liability or regulator investigations. "They all took the e-learning!"
• Often, e-learning tests only short-term memory. E-learning provides an easy way to test for short-term memory and comprehension. You can teach a screen of information and then quickly test to see if the learner has gotten it. However, that may not convert to long-term comprehension or transfer to the workplace. Yet, the data is collectable and reportable.
• Learning is usually blended. Most learners don't learn from just the e-learning modules that come across their screen. They do a personalized version of blended learning. The learner absorbs information and creates his or her own practice, gets help from a peer in the workplace, or even takes a follow-up class to get across the finish line of performance. The e-learning may be a large or small piece of the formula for learner effectiveness.
• The value is in the offer. In many instances, the organization is more interested in making the visible offer of the e-learning resources, rather than clearly measuring the effectiveness of specific programs.

If someone claims that all e-learning works equally well, he or she is caught in another bold-faced lie and not one that I actually hear from the mouths of my learning colleagues. In any collection of resources, there are variations in value and effectiveness. But, I defy you to show me how the manager or learner determines the relative effectiveness of e-learning from a list of courses or offerings on an organization's learning webpage. It isn't there. Instead, learning professionals tend to homogenize the appearance and effectiveness of course offerings.

Here is what learners might find useful and valuable:

• Ratings from peers: Let the learners benefit from one another's ratings. Give them an opportunity to rate learning resources.
• Ratings from experts: Learners would greatly benefit from hearing the ratings of specific programs from experts. I still attend movies that critics have rated a B or even C+.
• Presentation style information: This part of the description would explain the type of learning experience that the module offers. The learner would like a better description of the style of the e-learning (for example, page turner, testing throughout, simulation, role play, job-aid-centric, performance support).
• Learning style feedback: Learners would benefit from instrumentation that would give them feedback on how they are most effective as learners. Help the learner understand which types of learning resources tend to be most helpful to them.

On a meta-level, it's time to invest in learning research! Several studies indicate that there is a correlation in effectiveness between classroom and online instruction, but that is not enough. An international effort to create research on the relative effectiveness and efficiency of diverse e-learning programs in diverse situations would be enormously beneficial. Too many doctoral studies are focused on university students and short-term testing. Workplace-based research on e-learning effectiveness must be funded.

Lie 3: E-Learning Is Just an Online Class

Too much e-learning is a poor imitation of a great instructor-led class. This is predictable, as each innovation tends to use the metaphor of its predecessor. For example, early television shows were modeled after radio shows. Even classrooms were modeled after religious institutions. The lectern looks just like a church's pulpit. Let's not be constrained by the class metaphor. So what exactly happens when you "e" classroom instruction?

• Slow starts: E-learning designers use the same slow start as the classroom instructor. Learning professionals build these introductory modules that are usually worthless and students often hate. Why take five minutes to teach someone how to navigate? Learn from the world of gaming, where it just starts. Teach navigation as you go and use standard templates so that students develop muscle memory and instincts for their e-learning.
• Student language: Stop calling the consumer a student or a learner! Why take them back to the classroom mentality? If you are deploying e-learning at work, make it feel like work. The classroom will always feel like a place away from work, but let's make e-learning look and even smell like the world of work. Don't call the expert the teacher, and don't call the consumer a student. Remember, when learners feel like students, they often display many of the dysfunctional behaviors of their earlier days in school: higher passivity and even sitting in the back of the classroom. Turn e-learning into active learning.
• Linear instruction: As an instructional designer, I was taught to focus on scope and sequence. Define for the learners what they will learn and give them the perfect sequence for acquiring the new skill. In an instructor-led class, designers have to make a set of sequence decisions. Yet, e-learning gives the learner the ability to break the linear sequence. In fact, some learners thrive on learning things backward. Start at the end result and work backward. Let the learner skip to the highest interest module and navigate from there.
• Dismissal bell: A classroom model assumes that the learner will be there from the start of the lesson until the end or the bell goes off. Most e-learning is not geared toward visitation and positive departure. I want to be able to take a module and leave for a while, if I so desire, and easily come back and continue. Let's use the flexibility of the e-learning to create more comfortable access and departure.
• One voice, one instructor: A large percentage of e-learning is designed with a single voice of expertise. The instructor viewpoint is presented. Why not enlarge the voices in the room, including diverse opinions. Bring in content or even media clips of multiple folks with diverse opinions on the content. Don't be afraid of conflict, in fact use textured approaches to make e-learning more lively and engaging.
• Note-taking challenges: We are not helping e-learners with their notation needs. Learners want to be able to highlight, annotate, and add context to your notes and handouts. In classrooms, learning professionals acknowledge that learners will be marking up their well-designed notes to make them their own. Yet, in e-learning, learners are rarely given the opportunity to personalize the learning content. Learning vendors, take note. (No pun intended!)

Lie 4: E-Learning Pricing is Sensible

Wow, now that is a lie! Professionals are at an extremely confusing point on pricing in the e-learning world. This applies to both the pricing of e-learning content as well as learning systems such as learning content management systems (LCMSs). It is not surprising because the field is changing, and there is confusion about the pricing of all digital content. Pricing is confusing for buyers and suppliers as they structure their offerings.

Equivalency Pricing

Should an e-learning course be the same price as its classroom equivalent? Clearly, the organization may save significant expenses on travel and lodging, but is the learner really getting the same services and values? Does the e-learning offering provide coaching and remediation for the confused learner? And, are you paying for delivery of content or is the price for transfer?

Content Salad Bar Pricing

How should organizations pay for access to large collections of e-learning content? In the early days of CBT, organizations purchased content on an "all-you-can-eat" salad bar model. The concept was to pay a fee for each named user that gave the user permission to take as many courses as he or she liked throughout the year. In many ways, the fee was for the "offer" rather than the delivery. However, in some organizations, the full consumption of courses did not match the value of the subscription fees, which were subsequently renegotiated.

Pay for Completion or Access

Learners are grazing e-learning. They are popping into a course and effectively consuming the one module they need. But, this approach is causing deep confusion on the pricing front. Should this type of use be charged as a completion or should organizations be paying for library access to large collections of modules?

Learning Systems Variations

There is a huge variation in the actual pricing of LMSs and LCMSs. What should an organization pay per user or per server for a full functioning LMS or LCMS? There are no guidelines or an easy answer to this logical question because of the enormous fluctuation in pricing models in the industry at this moment. The newness of the LMS marketplace and the wide range of customization requirements have made pricing a minefield for procurement groups.

Pricing for learning products and services needs a tune-up. As an industry, take a fresh look at pricing (without raising any antitrust issues):

• New pricing models for learning content collections: Loaded access, average utilization, or even total bandwidth of content consumed could be explored in content collection pricing.
• Value-based pricing: Experiment with assigning varied value to content based on impact to the organization. One might even look to analytics such as increased sales to find a linkage between content and price.
• Benchmarking on pricing: Improve industrywide surveys of pricing on specific content, systems, and services to provide a perspective on the changing marketplace.

Lie 5: E-Learning Has a Future

This isn't really a lie, unless I am arrogantly saying that we really know the future of e-learning. There are some trends, however, based on evolutions in learning, technology, and even society at large that can inform the planning, evaluation, and purchase of learning systems, content, and services.

The Fading "E"

The "e" is a transitional term. It made great sense when the most provocative thing about e-learning was that it was electronic and delivered to the learner via the World Wide Web. But, that is not really new anymore. When I take a module or course online, it is just plain learning.

As other digital phenomena have become popularized, the "e" tends to fade. I don't think of ordering a book from Amazon as e-commerce. I don't think of checking into my JetBlue flight as e-check-in; it's just a convenient time saver. The same is true for e-learning. Watch for

• the fading of e-learning roles and titles in corporations, such as vice presidents of learning or chief learning officers (CLOs)
• the leveraging of learning systems for all flavors of learning activities including online, coaching, simulations, classroom, on-the-job training, and others
• the rise of blended learning as a larger percentage of organizational learning and performance efforts, combining the best of digital content with alternative activities.

The Media Richness of Web and E-Learning Experiences Grows

The learning profession is moving toward the posttext stage of its web experience. In the first decade of the web, learning professionals were excited to get relevant text (with varied cool fonts and colors) and an occasional picture or graphic. Now, expectations are for a richer and fuller media experience. The rapid acceptance of iPods and MP3 players, along with the rise of video on demand, has lubricated the way for a more visual and audio set of content. Look for the following learning evolutions in the near future:

• Audio everywhere: The creation and publishing of audio is one of the easy and low-cost capacities that will shake web experiences. Telephones or PC microphones will be used to make instant knowledge and context objects, which can be linked to sites with a single click. Audio content from the CEO or a key customer will bring daily, personalized radiotype shows to computers or mobile devices.
• Video bandwidth available: Your IT departments will reluctantly enter the video era. While they fought the impacts of video on uptime and bandwidth requirements for years, the game is about to end. Organizational requirements to deliver video to customers, supply chain partners, employees, and even job prospects will hit quickly and broadly. You will be in charge of your own video-feed editing. Learners will have access to multiple perspectives, segments, and even camera views.
• The resurgence of video conferencing: Video conferencing was once a herky-jerky picture and unsure audio feed, usually limited to expensive room systems right off the chief executive officer's suite. That is about to change dramatically! Low-cost, high-quality video over the Internet will allow learners to be linked live to expertise, internally and externally, with a single click. This will supercharge your ability to offer regular access to coaching, assessment, and context-based expertise on a global basis. Watch for the first rise of video conferencing in the home to link families to their elders in assisted living facilities. Cable modem services are targeting this application as one of the tipping points for popularizing this capability.
• MySpace and Facebook for work: The phenomenon of personal publishing that the younger generation, including your teenagers and college students, will dramatically change people's expectations of how content and expertise are shared among colleagues. I predict the rise of totally new social networking systems and places where your workers can selectively and simply create their own views and capture their experiences. Imagine each employee with a rich profile that can be viewed by either the entire organization or a subnetwork of friends or colleagues. Imagine providing the workforce with a daily question rather than an answer and watching the responses rapidly shaping on a global basis, in real time. If you don't create a rich social networking space for your employees, they will create a covert one on their own!
• Lifelong work and competency portfolios: Although learning professionals have accepted the prediction that careers will span many jobs, there really isn't an easy method to make work experience or competencies portable. Imagine if a worker could earn targeted and micro merit badges that mapped to commonly accepted sets of key competencies that were part of a standardized competency dictionary. These would then be supported and contextualized by a career portfolio that would contain sanitized examples of work projects to provide backup and validation. These portfolios would be viewable within the company to better expose talent and capacities and could be selectively exposed externally as the workers sought their next jobs or positions.
• More difficult and authentic assessment: Too much e-learning assessment is designed for easy passing grades. Success rates are tracked on first usage at levels as high as 95 percent.

Learners want to be challenged, and organizations deserve more difficult and authentic assessment. With the growth of gaming and simulation for learning, workers can be given the ability to fail forward, sometimes failing an assessment four or five times before they pass. When you are learning something new and difficult, failure is a natural and helpful part of the knowledge and skill acquisition process. Don't be afraid of ramping up the assessment intensity. It will engage learners better and yield far greater business impact.

Research and Development

There's a desperate need for a significant commitment to learning-focused research and development. I'd love to see a study showing the actual impact of long PowerPoint presentations. Instructors keep putting learners to sleep with slide hypnosis, but there is no research to inform this dysfunctional workplace habit. You need trusted, vendor-neutral studies on a range of learning topics, including the following:

• effectiveness of various e-learning models
• ideal duration of classes and online experiences
• role of multitasking on concentration, learning, and retention
• generational differences in learning
• effect of note-taking in classrooms and e-learning
• varied effectiveness of feedback and coaching strategies
• result of gaming on learning and retention
• impact of video and audio on learning and retention.

Such studies would help utilize e-learning technology for maximum efficiency. It is important to use studies that are available to you now and, based on your own project implementations, generate results that can be used within your organization for future learning projects.

Overcoming the Lies With Truth

Moving beyond the lies about e-learning requires you to demand greater truth telling from all parties. Learning professionals need to substitute measured evaluation for anecdotal stories. Move up Kirkpatrick's (1998) four-level evaluation model to look at true transfer to the workplace and business impacts. The instructional design models need to continually evolve with changes in media, content creation, and the expectations of learners. And, you have to demand and listen to the truth from your learners. Figure out what actually helps your learners achieve and perform better in the workplace and what hinders the application of what they learn. Ultimately, the lie that must be overcome is a naive belief that learning programs always work. When they do, it is a beautiful and powerful thing. When they don't, it is the job of learning professionals to figure out why and do something about it, even if it means admitting that they were taken in by all of the lies.