Here are three commonly held assumptions about online courseware.

1. Elearning is an efficient way to train people
2. Rapid development equates to streamlined training
3. People enjoy elearning

Consider the impact of these assumptions.

• Corporations continue to transition leader-led to WBT
• Development costs influence WBT design
• Seat time trumps comprehension
• Learning theories evolve to support popular assumptions

In transitioning from classroom learning to web based training, we may have forgotten the first two tenets of effective teaching: “observe the student” and “evaluate the experience”.

What role does observation and evaluation play in assessing the effectiveness of your web based training initiative?  Do you follow the ADDIE model such that Evaluation arrives at the END of your process?  Upon successfully launching a WBT might the “E” actually become a “silent E” and then be quietly forgotten? Do you perform an Evaluation at all?

In training situations where evaluation is of value, unbiased feedback assists in identifying the success or failure of entire curricula; and, on a more granular level, the success or failure of individual learning objects in each course.

We must recognize “feedback” for the potential value it holds; as unfiltered reactions to experiences that indicate interest, boredom, displeasure or neutrality. Without direct feedback, we have nothing upon which to base our beliefs except “smile sheet” opinions and a bit of guesswork.

For businesses, unlike online colleges, training is not a commercial product. Companies do not attract employees because their training courses are first class.

When businesses consider training an expense that marginalizes profit, it is natural for the organization to search for the best low cost solution.  Certainly then “best” becomes subjective, most often defined as fast or simple. In a profit-or-loss paradigm, one would agree that “best” cannot include anything that increases time, cost or effort.

So what is the overarching influence of this reality? Companies seek streamlined (fast and cheap) rapid development solutions. Application developers shift their focus to meet the demand for tools that allow training courses to be created faster and cheaper. Without the need for skilled (expensive) Instructional Designers, organizations provide these “easy” development tools to anyone who knows how to use PowerPoint. Students are expected to learn from rapidly developed page turners. Training is completed and success is measured by the only evaluation measurement required – the completion status in the LMS.

This is a bleak picture for those recognizing the value of the professional Instructional Designer’s contribution of learning theories to course development. It should disturb anyone who believes education/training should impart knowledge and impact job performance.

Solution? In a business sense we must move training to the profit side of the ledger. We can provide a greater scope of value by capturing mineable data from each student/course engagement that can help a business make decisions that positively impact its bottom line.

We need to show organizations the data returned from a student’s training experience is at least equally as valuable as the content and concepts presented in the training itself. This can be achieved by following teaching tenets 1 and 2…observe and evaluate.

Next: Blindfolded Design

We don’t do anything without feedback. It’s so much a part of us that our entire nervous system is built to provide it to help us determine appropriate responses.

In some situations we seek out feedback to validate our own assumptions – “Does this dress make me look fat?” At other times feedback is unsolicited – “That dress makes you look fat.” In either case the information is useful in developing a response action.

But what about elearning? How do we get feedback on the courses we’ve developed or purchased, and implemented?

If you’re like most of us you’re just glad to get the courses posted on the LMS and assigned to the target audience. The passing grade and completion checkmark are sufficient feedback for determining success for both the student and the course.

This passive approach to evaluation negatively impacts all stakeholders. As such, we need to collectively address the process by which our educational efforts are being evaluated, or those less invested in the process will define the terms by which we develop and implement web based training solutions.

Consider that 70% of all corporate online training is compliance-based. This means the company has not independently elected to develop or implement training in these areas. The natural impulse when we are TOLD to do something is to, at first: resist, second: look for a way not to have to comply, and finally: identify the least expensive means to comply. For most organizations this defines elearning. It’s the less expensive option versus classroom instruction.

Let that concept sink if for a while. Consider COST as the original ROI of our educational efforts. We’re cheaper than a classroom.

Soon less expensive was no longer enough. Courses had to be developed faster. So in “response to market demand” application developers valiantly stepped up to the plate and offered “rapid development tools”. This streamlined approach was based on employing the sound pedagogical principles embodied by the Microsoft PowerPoint application to allow educators to construct and deliver less expensive courses in a shortened timeframe. Educational Nirvana had been achieved.

Or was it? Has fast and cheap helped achieve the goals of education or simply met the minimal requirements for proof of compliance?

Has the checkmark in the LMS report become the new standard by which we measure success?

If you share my values as an educator, when you cannot be happy with how our efforts or our industry is generally perceived. Less expensive than a classroom; constructed with a presentation tool.

How did we get here? How did we allow those who may not be as interested in the goal of true comprehension that we value as educators to define the tools we employ?

It began with feedback. We passively allowed the checkmark in the LMS to become the defacto feedback standard by which educational success was measures. The checkmark became the goal. Comprehension was an afterthought – and certainly not required by the audit report.

Puns aside, I believe it is time to make a drastic course correction. We must make COMPREHENSION the standard by which we measure our attempts at educating our students and employees. All invested parties need to play a role in this effort. That means Chief Learning Officers, Compliance Managers, Application Developers, Training Managers, Instructional Designers, Students and Budget Directors.

“How quickly can they get through it?” is no longer an acceptable question. Consider instead asking: “Will they understand the concepts and assimilate them into the way in which they approach their job?”