what have we learned from the research on online learning?
Post on 30-Dec-2015
24 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
What Have We Learned From the Research on Online
Learning?
Dr. Curtis J. Bonk Professor, Indiana University
President, CourseShare and SurveySharehttp://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk,
cjbonk@indiana.edu
Basic Distance Learning Finding?
• Research since 1928 shows that DL students perform as well as their counterparts in a traditional classroom setting.
Per: Russell, 1999, The No Significant Difference Phenomenon (5th Edition), NCSU, based on 355 research reports.
http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/
Online Learning Research Problems (National Center for Education Statistics,
1999; Phipps & Merisotos, 1999; Wisher et al., 1999).
Anecdotal evidence; minimal theory. Questionable validity of tests. Lack of control group. Hard to compare given different
assessment tools and domains. Fails to explain why the drop-out
rates of distance learners are higher.
Does not relate learning styles to different technologies or focus on interaction of multiple technologies.
Online Learning Research Problems
(Bonk & Wisher, 2001)
• For different purposes or domains: in our study, 13% concern training, 87% education
• Flaws in research designs- Only 36% have objective learning
measures- Only 45% have comparison groups
• When effective, it is difficult to know why- Course design?- Instructional methods?- Technology?
Evaluating Web-Based Instruction:Methods and Findings (41 studies)
(Olson & Wisher, October, 2002; International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning)
Year of Publication
02468
1012
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
die
s
http://www.irrodl.org/content/v3.2/olsen.html
Wisher’s Wish List Effect size of .5 or higher in
comparison to traditional classroom instruction.
Web Based Instruction
CBIKulik [8]
CBILiao [18]
Average Effect Size
.31 .32 .41
Number of Studies
11 97 46
Evaluating Web-Based Instruction: Methods and
Findings(Olson & Wisher, 2002)
“…there is little consensus as to what variables should be examined and what measures of of learning are most appropriate, making comparisons between studies difficult and inconclusive.”
e.g., demographics (age, gender), previous experience, course design, instructor effectiveness, technical issues, levels of participation and collaboration, recommendation of course, desire to take add’l online courses.
Evaluating Web-Based Instruction: Methods and
Findings(Olson & Wisher, 2002)
Variables Studied:1. Type of Course: Graduate (18%) vs.
undergraduate courses (81%)2. Level of Web Use: All-online (64%) vs.
blended/mixed courses (34%)3. Content area (e.g., math/engineering
(27%), science/medicine (24%), distance ed (15%), social science/educ (12%), business (10%), etc.)
4. Attrition data (34%)5. Comparison Group (59%)
Some of the Research Gaps
(Bonk & Wisher, 2000)
1) Variations in Instructor Moderation2) Online Debating3) Student Perceptions of e-Learning Envir.4) Devel of Online Learning Communities5) Time Allocation: Instructor and Student6) Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Applications in Sync/Asynchronous Envir7) Peer Tutoring and Online Mentoring: 8) Student Retention: E-learning and
Attrition9) Graphical Representation of Ideas10) Online Collaboration
My Evaluation Plan…
Considerations in Evaluation Plan
1. Student
2. Instructor
3. Training
4. Task5. Tech Tool
6. Course
7. Program
8. University or
Organization
Electronic Conferencing: Quantitative Analyses
Usage patterns, # of messages, cases, responses
Length of case, thread, response Average number of responses Timing of cases, commenting,
responses, etc. Types of interactions (1:1; 1: many) Data mining (logins, peak usage, location,
session length, paths taken, messages/day/week), Time-Series Analyses (trends)
Electronic Conferencing: Qualitative Analyses
General: Observation Logs, Reflective interviews, Retrospective Analyses, Focus Groups
Specific: Semantic Trace Analyses, Talk/Dialogue Categories (Content talk, questioning, peer feedback, social acknowledgments, off task)
Emergent: Forms of Learning Assistance, Levels of Questioning, Degree of Perspective Taking, Case Quality, Participant Categories
Student Basic Quantitative Grades, Achievement Test Scores, etc. Number of Posts Overall Participation Computer Log Activity—peak usage,
messages/day, time of task or in system
Attitude Surveys
Student High-End Success
Message complexity, depth, interactivity, questioning
Collaboration skills Problem finding/solving and critical
thinking Challenging and debating others Case-based reasoning, critical
thinking measures Portfolios, performances, PBL
activities
Other Measures of Student Success
(Focus groups, interviews, observations, surveys, exams, records)
Positive Feedback, Recommendations Increased Comprehension, Achievement High Retention in Program Completion Rates or Course Attrition Jobs Obtained, Internships Enrollment Trends for Next Semester
Findings: Learning Improved
(Maki et al., 2000)
Intro to Psych: Lecture vs. Online Online performed better on
midterms. Web-based course students
scored higher since had weekly activities due
Lecture students could put off reading until night before exam.
Findings: Learning Improved
(review by Chang, 2003)
Online outperformed peers in histology (anatomy—plant and animal tissues under microscope) course (Shoenfeld-Tacher et al., 2001)
Web enhancements raised exam performance, grades, & attitudes toward economics Agarwal and Day (1998)
Online business communications students performed better on final exams than on campus (Tucker, 2000)
Integrating Wireless Content Syllabus Magazine, May 13, 2003
Study by Mobile Learning Corp: group of college institutions Digital content helped first-year
college accounting students learn Online interactive exercises
useful to student learning Encouraged independent student
learning, and instructors to adopt coaching role.
Findings: Learning Worse
(Wang & Newlin, 2000)
Stat Methods: Lecture vs. Online No diffs at midterm Lecture 87 on final, Web a 72 Course relatively unstructured Web students encouraged to collab Lecture students could not collab All exams but final were open book
Findings: Learning Worse…Organizational Behavior, IUSE
(Keefe, Educause Quarterly, 1, 2003)
Keefe studied 4 semesters of courses, 6 sections, 118 students Face-to-face more satisfied with course
and instructor Those in online course associated with
lower grades
Learning Improved or Not?
(Sankaran et al., 2000)
Students with a positive attitude toward Web format learned more in Web course than in lecture course.
Students with positive attitude toward lecture format learned more in lecture format.
Contrasting Findings are the Norm
Some courses impersonal, isolating, and frustrating (Hara & Kling, 2001)
Sense of community and lower attrition rates when support interactivity, reflection, and sharing (Harnishfeger, March, 2003)
Problem-Based Learning
Distance Ed, 23(1), 2002
Practical learning issues generated more interactions and higher levels of interaction than theoretical issues
Communities of learners need to negotiate identity and knowledge and need milestones (chat session agreements, producing reports, sharing stories, and new work patterns)
Group development: (1) negotiate problem and timetable, (2) divide work in subgroups, and (3) produce drafts of products
Network Conferencing Interactivity (Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997)
1. > 50 percent of messages were reactive.2. Only around 10 percent were truly interactive. 3. Most messages factual stmts or opinions4. Many also contained questions or requests.5. Frequent participators more reactive than low.6. Interactive messages more opinions & humor.7. More self-disclosure, involvement, & belonging.8. Attracted to fun, open, frank, helpful,
supportive environments.
Schallert & Reed, AERA, April 2003
Nonnative students do not participate equally in written discussions
Enthusiastic and frequent contributors do not necessarily make intellectually significant contributions.
Some who seem deeply engaged may be less rigorously engaged in many conversations
Collaborative Behaviors(Curtis & Lawson, 1997)
Most common were: (1) Planning, (2) Contributing, and (3) Seeking Input.
Other common events were:(4) Initiating activities,(5) Providing feedback,(6) Sharing knowledge
Few students challenge others or attempt to explain or elaborate
Recommend: using debates and modeling appropriate ways to challenge others
Dimensions of Learning Process
(Henri, 1992)
1. Participation (rate, timing, duration of messages)
2. Interactivity (explicit interaction, implicit interaction, & independent comment)
3. Social Events (stmts unrelated to content)
4. Cognitive Events (e.g., clarifications, inferencing, judgment, and strategies)
5. Metacognitive Events (e.g., both metacognitive knowledge—person, and task, and strategy and well as metacognitive skill—evaluation, planning, regulation, and self-awareness)
Surface vs. Deep Posts(Henri, 1992)
Surface Processing making judgments
without justification, stating that one shares
ideas or opinions already stated,
repeating what has been said
asking irrelevant questions
i.e., fragmented, narrow, and somewhat trite.
In-depth Processing linked facts and ideas, offered new elements of
information, discussed advantages
and disadvantages of a situation,
made judgments that were supported by examples and/or justification.
i.e., more integrated, weighty, and refreshing.
Critical Thinking (Newman, Johnson, Webb & Cochrane, 1997)
Used Garrison’s five-stage critical thinking model
Critical thinking in both CMC and FTF envir. Depth of critical thinking higher in CMC envir.
More likely to bring in outside information Link ideas and offer interpretations, Generate important ideas and solutions.
FTF settings were better for generating new ideas and creatively exploring problems.
Social Construction of
Knowledge (Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson, 1997)
Five Stage Model1. Share ideas,2. Discovery of Idea Inconsistencies, 3. Negotiate Meaning/Areas Agree, 4. Test and Modify,5. Phrase Agreements
In global debate, very task driven. Dialogue remained at Phase I: sharing info
Research on Instructors Online If teacher-centered, students
explore less, engage less, interact less (Peck, and Laycock, 1992)
Informal, exploratory conversation fosters risktaking & knowledge sharing (Weedman, 1999)
Online Teaching Job Varies--Plan, Interaction, Admin, Teaching (McIsaac, Blocher, Mahes, & Vrasidas,
1999)
Three Most Vital Online Teaching SkillsThe Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001)
Ability to engage the learner (30) Ability to motivate online
learners (23) Ability to build relationships (19) Technical ability (18) Having a positive attitude (14) Adapt to individual needs (12) Innovation or creativity (11)
Feelings Toward Online TeachingThe Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001)(Note: 94 practitioners surveyed.)
Exciting (30) Challenging (24) Time consuming (22) Demanding (18) Technical issue (16); Flexibility (16) Potential (15) Better options (14); Frustrating (14) Collab (11); Communication (11); Fun
(11)
Little or no feedback given
Always authoritative Kept narrow focus of
what was relevant Created tangential
discussions Only used “ultimate”
deadlines
Provided regular qual/quant feedback
Participated as peer Allowed perspective
sharing Tied discussion to
grades, other assessments.
Used incremental deadlines
Poor Instructors Good Instructors
Dennen’s Research on Nine Online Courses
(sociology, history, communications, writing, library science, technology, counseling)
Role of Online Teacher(Bonk, Kirkley, Hara, & Dennen, 2001)
Technical—Train, early tasks, be flexible, orientation task
Managerial—Initial meeting, FAQs, detailed syllabus, calendar, post administrivia, assign e-mail pals, gradebooks, email updates
Pedagogical—Peer feedback, debates, PBL, cases, structured controversy, field reflections, portfolios, teams, inquiry, portfolios
Social—Café, humor, interactivity, profiles, foreign guests, digital pics, conversations, guests
Problems and Solutions
(Bonk, Wisher, & Lee, in press)
1. Tasks Overwhelm2. Confused on Web3. Too Nice Due to
Limited Share History
4. Lack Justification5. Hard not to
preach6. Too much data7. Communities not
easy to form
Train and be clear Structure time/dates
due Develop roles and
controversies Train to back up claims Students take lead role Use Email Pals Embed Informal/Social
Benefits and Implications
(Bonk, Wisher, & Lee, in press)
1. Shy open up online2. Minimal off task3. Delayed collab more
rich than real time4. Students can
generate lots of info5. Minimal disruptions6. Extensive E-Advice7. Excited to Publish
Use async conferencing Create social tasks Use Async for debates;
Sync for help, office hours
Structure generation and force reflection/comment
Foster debates/critique Find Experts or Prac. Ask Permission
More Implications Include Variety: tasks, topics,
participants, accomplishments, etc.
Make interaction extend beyond class
Have learners be teachers Find multiple ways to succeed Add personalization and choice Provide clarity and easy
navigation
Ten Ways Online Ed Matches or Surpasses FTF, Mark Kassop, Technology Source, Michigan Virtual Univ, May/June 2003
1. Student-centered learning2. Writing intensity3. Highly interactive discussions4. Geared for lifelong learning5. Enriched course materials6. Online demand interaction and support7. Immediate feedback8. Flexibility9. An intimate community of learners10. Faculty development and rejuvenation
Collecting Evaluation Data Learner Reaction Learner Achievement Learner Job Performance Manager Reaction Productivity Benchmarks
Forms of Evaluation Interviews and Focus Groups Self-Analysis Supervisor Ratings Surveys and Questionnaires ROI Document Analysis Data Mining (Changes in pre and
post-training; e.g., sales, productivity)
What is Evaluation???
“Simply put, an evaluation is concerned with judging the worth of a program and is essentially conducted to aid in the making of decisions by stakeholders.” (e.g., does it work as effectively as the standard instructional approach).
(Champagne & Wisher, in press)
Meta-Analysis: Recurrent Themes in
E-Learning Reports (Waight, Willging, & Wentling, 2002)
1. 250 e-learning reports from 1999-2001
2. Of those, 100 were sold by private companies for $100-3,000
3. Of remaining 150, 70 outside U.S.4. 15 selected were from government,
bus, and professional associations5. Few studied review existing research
Meta-Analysis: Six Functions of E-
Learning (Waight, Willging, & Wentling, 2002)
Anytime, anywhere Cost effective Global reach Just-in-time Allow personalization Improve collaboration and interactivity
Address learner diversity, learner-centered, and blur working and learning lines
Meta-Analysis: Six Purposes of E-
Learning Reports (Waight, Willging, & Wentling, 2002)
1. Inform investors of opportunities2. Discuss learning in the workforce3. Inform policy makers, educators,
employees, and public4. Identify drivers and players5. Discuss contrib of tech to lrng/perf6. Identity trends and winning
strategies
Blended Learning Advantages
1. Course access at one’s convenience and flexible completion
2. Reduction in physical class time3. Promotes independent learning4. Multiple ways to accomplish course
objectives5. Increased opportunities for human
interaction, communication, & contact among students
6. Less time commuting and parking7. Introverts participate more
Blended Learning Disadvantages
1. Procrastination, procrastination, procrastination
2. Students have trouble managing time3. Problems with technology at the
beginning (try too much)4. Can be overwhelming or too novel5. Poor integration or planning6. Resistance to change7. Good ideas but lack of time, money,
& support
Success Story #1 (Sitze, March 2002, Online Learning):
EDS and GlobalEnglishCharge: Reduce money on English
trainingGoal: 80% online in 3 monthsResult: 12% use in 12 monthsPrior Costs: $1,500-5,000/studentNew Cost: $150-300/userNotes: Email to participants was
helpful in expanding use; rolling out other additional languages.
Success Story #2 (Overby, Feb 2002, CIO):
Dow Chemical & Offensive Email
Charge: Train 40,000 employees across 70 countries; 6 hours of training on workplace respect and responsibility.
Specific Results: 40,000 passedSavings: Saved $2.7 million ($162,000
on record keeping, $300,000 on classrooms and trainers, $1,000,000 on handouts, $1,200,000 in salary savings due to less training time).
Success Story #3 (Overby, Feb 2002, CIO):
Dow Chemical & Safety/Health
Charge: Train 27,000 employees on environmental health and safety work processes.
Results: Saved $6 million; safety incidents have declined while the number of Dow employees have grown.
Success Story #4 (Overby, Feb 2002, CIO):
Dow Chemical & e-learning system
Charge: $1.3 million e-learning system
Savings: $30 million in savings ($850,000 in manual record-keeping, $3.1 in training delivery costs, $5.2 in reduced classroom materials, $20.8 in salaries since Web required 40-60% less training time).
Success Story #5 (Ziegler, e-learning, April 2002):
British Telecom & sales training
Costs: Train 17,000 sales professionals to sell Internet services using Internet simulation.
Result: Customer service rep training reduced from 15 days to 1 day; Sales training reduced from 40 days to 9 days.
Savings: Millions of dollars saved; sales conversion went up 102 percent; customer satisfaction up 16 points.
Success Story #6. Infusing E-
Learning (Elliott Masie, March 2002, e-learning Magazine)
A manufacturing company transformed a week-long safety program into a three-part offering:
1. One day in classroom
2. Multiple online simulations and lessons.
3. One final day of discussions and exams.
Must accomplish online work before phase 3—
this raised success rate, transfer of skills, and lowered hours away from the job.
Success Story #7. Ratheon, Build Own LMS
(John Hartnett, Online Learning, Summer 2002)
SAP Training Choice: Vendor ($390,000) or Build Internally ($136,000) or Cost of Instructor-led Training ($388,000).
Note Saved $252,000Five Training Components in 18 Weeks (within 6
weeks, 4,000 courses taken by 1,400 students)1. Role-based simulations2. Audio walk-throughs3. Online quick reference system4. Live training support (special learning
labs)5. Online enrollment and tracking
Success Story #8: IBMSpecial E-Learning Issue, April 2001
33,000 IBM managers have taken online courseware.
5 times as much content at one-third the cost.
IBM reported $200 million in savings in one year.
Voided $80 million dollars in travel and housing expenses during 1999 be deploying online learning.
IBM Training of 6,600 New First-Line Managers (Basic Blue)
Phase I: 26 Weeks of Self-paced Online Learning Cohorts of 24 managers Lotus LearningSpace Forum 2 hours/week; 5 units/week 18 mandatory and elective management
topics Need minimum score on mandatory topics 14 real-life interactive simulations LearningSpace tutor guides behavior
Karen Mantyla (2001), ASTD.
IBM Training of 6,600 New First-Line Managers (Basic Blue)
Phase II: In-class 5 day learning lab Experiential higher order learning Bring real-life activities from job Focus on self-knowledge and to understand
their roles as leaders and members of IBM Harvard Business cases, leadership
competency surveys, managerial style questionnaires, brain dominance inventories
Coached by a learner-colleague (teaming impt!)
Less than 1 hour of the 5 days is lecture
IBM Training of 6,600 New First-Line Managers (Basic Blue)
Phase III: 25 Weeks of Online Learning Similar to Phase I but more complex
and focuses on application Creates individual development plan
and organizational action plan Managers reviews and signs off on
these plans
IBM Training Results (Kirkpatrick Model)
Level 1 High satisfaction and enthusiasm for
blended Coaching and climate rated highest
Level 2: 96% displayed mastery in all 15 subject
areas; 5 times as much content covered in this program compared to 5 days of live training
150 Web page requests/learner
IBM Training Results (Kirkpatrick Model)
Level 3 Significant behavior change (in particular in
coaching, styles, competencies, and climate) Graduate had high self-efficacy and believed
that they could make a difference
Level 4 Linkage bt leadership & customer satisfaction Leadership led to teamwork and satisfaction Managers reported improvement on job Improved morale and productivity reported
IBM Training Results (Kirkpatrick Model)
Level 5 Asked graduates to estimate the
impact on their departments in dollars
$415,000 or ROI of 47 to 1. Perceived real and lasting leadership
increases
Updated Success Story #8: IBM CLO, March 2003
5,000 new managers/year Program cost = $5 million, cost
avoidance = $88 million (travel, living expenses, and manager time)
5 times as much content delivered compared to previous new-manager training program
72% delivered through distance, 25% via classroom
Access materials at own convenience.
Blended Learning Advantages for IBM
1. Greater consistency of language, knowledge, and corporate culture across the globe
2. Blended approach to training now replicated in other units
3. Market it’s e-learning design4. Cross functional understanding &
teamwork5. No risk trials and simplicity helps
Success Story #9. Army Three Phases of AC3-DL
I. Asynchronous Phase: 240 hours of instruction or 1 year to complete; must score 70% or better on each gate exam
II. Synchronous Phase: 60 hours of asynchronous and 120 hours of synchronous
III. Residential Phase: 120 hours of training in 2 weeks at Fort Knox
AC3-DL Course Tools Learned faster than in
correspondence course More flexible; could do around full
time work schedules Fit Army small group training model Async for content, sync for
application Need to shorten course modules
and provide sync training earlier to increase retention
Overall frequency of interactions across chat categories (6,601
chats).
On-Task55%Social
30%
Mechanics15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Month 1,2 Month 3,4 Month 5,6
On-Task Social Mechanics
Success #10: Microsoft Excel Training(Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning)
Group One: 5 scenario-based exercises that offered live use of Excel on real-world tasks, online mentors, FAQs, relevant Web sites, NETg Excel Fundamentals Learning Objects.
Group Two: Same as Group One but without scenarios, but info in 5 scenarios were embedded in the learning objects.
Group Three: No training control.
Success #10: Microsoft Excel Training(Thompson Learning Company Study; Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning)
Group One (the blended group): 30 percent increase in accuracy over Group Two (the e-learning group) and were 41 percent faster
Group Two performed 159 more accurately than Group Three
Groups 1 and 2 relied on the online mentors for support (Note: with these results, Lockhead Martin
became a blended learning convert.
Success #11: NCR: Blended Approaches(Thompson Learning Company Study; Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning)
1. Design of E-Learning (Various methods: Web articles; Synchronous points for team exercises)
2. Field Guide Binders (Web site guidance, live feedback on case studies, live “kick off” that promotes collaboration, hands-on role play)
Over 71 percent of learners were responding to customers more effectively (Kirkpatrick Level 3)
Success #12: Convergys: Blended(Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning)
Leadership Dev, Succession Planning, performance management, etc.
LMS from Knowledge Planet, 3 e-learning libraries, virtual classroom tools to 50 locations in North America & Europe
New managers received: Readings, job aids, meeting checklists, 5 off-the-shelf courses from SkillSoft, virtual classes via LearnLinc (new recruits talk to experienced managers), and a 4 day instructor-led seminar at HQ.
Success #13: Sallie Mae/USA Group (Blended student loan provider program)(Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning)
LEAD (Leadership and Education Development); Groom internal staff to fill supervisory-level positions
4 hours/week in class with internal and external instructors; learn trust, role of managers, etc.
First must complete 3 online management courses from SkillSoft and 6 online project management courses (includes panel presentation by IT Project Team to illustrate how projects are handled in the company’s culture)
Findings: increased temawork, camaraderie, shared understanding of concepts, respect for individual differences, social interaction, and reinforcement for class concepts.
Success #14: Proctor and Gamble(Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning)
1999 = 100,000 employees; 20,000 trained/year
LMS from Saba, live training from Centra CD-based training using Authorware,
CourseBuilder, & Dreamweaver 2002 = 1,200 learning items; 34% Web,
54% CD Global English saved $2.5 million per year Off-the-shelf courses in time
management and managing for success
Proctor and Gamble(Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning)
“Given our learning objectives and needs, should we select Web-based live training, versus classroom, versus video-based, versus CBT, or some blended solution?…It depends, on the resources you have, how far geographically you have to reach, or whether you can get your arm around them and pull them into a classroom.” Art DiMartile, Senior IT Manager, Proctor and Gamble
The Worldwide Expansion of E-Learning!!!
Success #15: Circuit City is training 50,000 employees from 600 stores using customized courses that are “short, fun, flexible, interactive and instantly applicable on the job.”
Success #16: The Army’s virtual university offered online college courses to more than 12,000 students located anywhere in the world in 2001 in the first year of a $42 million e-learning program.
Dr. Sylvia Charp, Editor-in-Chief, T.H.E. Journal, March 2002.
Success #17: Community Health Network of
Indiana; www.ehealthindiana.com (July 15, 2002, American Hospital Association)
Named one of most wired hospitals and most improved hospital system nationwide in the use of technology in health care
Virtual nurse recruitment Web site (live chats with recruiters)
Video streams of nursing leaders Virtual tours of individual nursing units Online application and interactive job-posting
databases Web portal for physicians First in nation to offer live Web cast of in vitro
fertilization procedure Real time clinical data repository
Success #18: Cisco and DigitalThink Course (Cisco vendors)
Most saw significant growth in productivity
74% reported improvement in ability to sell or service clients
Customer satisfaction jumped 50%
Success #18: Cisco and DigitalThink Course (employees)
Sales training self-assessment Ask via survey to estimate how much
time training saved them on the job Ask whether it improved performance Select a percentage for each ROI of 900%; for every $1 spent on
training, Cisco sees a gain of 900% in productivity
Success #19: Kinkos(CLO, May 2003)
1,100 locations in 9 countries Used blended model: Internet +
decentralized instruction, job aids, mentoring, virtual classroom training
Resulted in cost savings Increased staff capability, reduced
time to competence, increased speed to market, and increased compliance and certification
Success #20: Masimo (develops medical signals for vital signs) (CLO, May 2003)
Challenge to keep sales force and OEM distribution partners up-to-date and competent
E-learning has resulted in faster time-to-market and deeper capabilities for adoption of their technology
Increased brand awareness and product awareness among hospital staff
Building communities of uses for future sales
Success #21: Tenet Health System(CLO, March 2003)
By 2010, there will be 21,000 less nurses than today and 40% will be over age 50
Recruitment and retention a major problem
Provided access to 500 hours of online clinical training and learning paths aligned along career trajectories (e.g., RN track a way to recruit)
40% of RNs cited learning opportunities as major reason for taking job
Success #22: Real Estate Company(CLO, March 2003)
Microsoft applications (Outlook, Excel, Word, etc.) training via e-learning
67 percent of costs were non-technical
150 courses completed in 8 months and more than 500 initiated
Success #22: Real Estate Company(CLO, March 2003)
Employee satisfaction and retention up
Time to payback period 5-6 months Faster time to competency and
greater employee productivity Return on investment (ROI) of 22
percent
Success #23: Energy Company(CLO, March 2003)
IT technical training for employees Async, Web-based, self-paced
learning Some employees discussed learning
in virtual classroom In 12 month span, 3,000 courses
completed and another 7,000 partially completed
Success #23: Energy Company(CLO, March 2003)
Payback period of 3-4 months 12 month ROI of 192 percent Faster time to competency Reduced re-work Higher employee retention Higher quality of service Reduced help desk call volume and
costs Less system downtime
Success #24: Defense & Aerospace Company (CLO, March 2003)
Fortune 100 company Trained consultants who built systems Subject matter highly technical & rapidly
changing Cost $100,000 more per year Blended selected—primarily instructor
led with some Web content for self study 60% instructor delivered, 30% web, 10%
individual coaching/mentoring
Success #24: Defense & Aerospace Company (CLO, March 2003)
Payback period of 1-2 months 12 month ROI of 195 percent Faster time to competency Higher employee retention and
customer satisfaction Reduced cycle times Higher quality of service Higher customer loyalty
top related