Is Digital Learning Effective in the Workplace?
Introduction
One should probably expect the title of this paper to be a statement instead of a question. However, the question is one that arises with ever increasing frequency in both corporations and academic instituitions throughout the world. Hence, it is a question that deserves more attention than a recounting of the plethora of anecdotal accounts and projections from technology and business analysts.
As a start toward providing reasoned answers to the question, this paper reviews existing research literature concerning digital learning effectiveness in academic contexts when compared to traditional classroom events. Additional objectives are to:
- Point to strategies that enhance the effectiveness of digital learning in the workplace.
- Suggest recommendations for incorporating digital learning in corporate training strategies.
Background
An Internet search for "digital learning" or "e-learning" produces an abundance of opinions, statistics, forecasts and experiences, most of which suggest that digital learning offers considerable advantage to corporations from a return-on-investment (ROI) perspective. The numbers touted by IBM are more than impressive, they are near unbelievable. As a more modest example, Campbell (2000) states that United Airlines reduced its training time for e-ticketing training from 40 hours to 18 by converting from classroom events to a digital learning format. Moreover, the best scores among those who attended the classroom events were lower than the worst scores among those who took the digital version.
Similar accounts produce similar conclusions-ROI is positive and grades are at least equivalent. But, equivalent test scores only partially answer the question posed here: Just how effective is digital learning when compared against an equivalent classroom event? Did the United Airlines experience also produce greater student satisfaction? How about retention of what was learned? What was the effect on productivity once the students were back on the job? Was there a difference in post-course supervision/mentoring that was required for those who had classroom training versus digital training? Was the learning experience even relevant to the real tasks on the job?
The answers are not easily found, in part, because such questions are not usually asked. Academic research generally suggests that digital learning produces outcomes that are similar to traditional classroom settings (Beare, 1989; McCleary & Egan, 1989; Sonner, 1999); however, these studies focus on grades and ignore questions such as what factors account for success and to what degree is competency actually demonstrated. In short, there is a paucity of credible research by which to support a claim that digital learning is at least as effective as traditional classroom training in areas such as retention, relevance, satisfaction and performance. There is also a shortage of consistently positive reports from corporations that were early adopters of digital learning. Some have decried the inititiave as a failed experiment while others are only able to report on ROI as the basis for their approval.
The growing number of accounts of high drop-out rates (failure to complete), lack of user satisfaction and no differences in performance suggest that digital learning might not be the panacea often implied by proponents of digital learning products and services. While we cannot yet establish all reasons for the complaints, there are obvious contributing consequences of a rush to "go-digital": (a) poor quality content regardless of format, (b) poor instructional design, (c) technology and infrastructure problems, (d) inappropriate software decisions, and (e) inappropriate content for the business and learning objectives.
Another part of the challenge in determining what is either right or wrong with digital learning is that we have few instances where we can make reliable comparisons. Received assumptions, such as the viability of traditional classroom instruction, obscure both reasoning and research. It is probably safe to claim that all readers are most experienced in classroom education and training. It is likely that readers will also acknowledge that not all classroom experiences are satisfactory, conducive to learning or promote increased performance. So, how shall we draw conclusions about the effectiveness of one approach versus the other?
The first step is to refine the question. Perhaps a more appropriate question is: When and where is digital learning as or more effective than traditional classroom training using equivalent learning content? While we must still define the terms "effective" and "digital learning," it is more likely that a comparison can be made when the content is controlled.
Of the required definitions, "digital learning" is probably easiest to articulate. Most often the term is considered to mean a formal course along with measurement, both being delivered by electronic means. However, such a definition is far too limiting in the sense that it is assumed to be a course. It is also limiting in that it prescribes measurement. For reasons that should later become apparent, digital learning is defined here in somewhat broader terms. It is the electronic delivery of material and/or interaction with the expectation of changing attitude, belief, thinking, and/or the behavior of the learner. This leaves the term "effectiveness."
How Do We Know if Any Learning Experience is Effective?
The question of effectiveness has plagued the learning community for decades, if not centuries. Just what is an effective learning experience? How do we determine what is a result of an essential learning skill as opposed to the contribution of the learning experience? Feuerstein (1980) asserts that a highly stimulating learning experience is not sufficient to guarantee that the person actually learns from it. Particular learning skills are also required (Howe, 1987): utilizing information in memory, remembering the past and imagining the future, understanding and looking for relationships between perceived objects, organizing and seeing patterns, regularities and other relationships. Hence, a person with very high learning skills might "learn" more readily than one without, even if the experience is highly ineffective.
The subject of learning skills demands far more exploration than is possible or necessarily useful here. The role of variables such as maturity and motivation in the development of learning skills also deserves considerable attention; and, as suggested by the research reviewed here, could be major determinants of the outcomes. Likewise, learning styles and models are important subjects; and they too deserve more attention than is possible in this paper. Hence, the focus here will be limited to understanding learning-event effectiveness in terms of expectations for outcome. How do we understand the effectiveness considering the expectations we have for the event?
To answer this question, it is useful to consider expectations in terms of the change facilitated by the experience. It is axiomatic that if learning occurs, there is change. Change might occur in attitude, thinking, beliefs and/or behavior. Something will have changed or else learning simply did not occur. Perhaps the material is captured and retained in memory but remains merely mental dust that can be recalled upon appropriate neural stimulation; but efficient recall is not learning. In the absence of change, we must question the viability of the learning event. Perhaps the material is better left in a library or digital repository until it is useful to the person or the enterprise.
Therefore, to understand effectiveness we need to understand the degree to which change is likely or has measurably occurred. To do this, it is useful to separate those learning experiences that might produce predictable results from those that produce measurable results. For purposes of this paper, learning events are described as being "survey" experiences or "competency" opportunities.
In both cases, it is often useful to measure the results of the learning experience. The traditional approach has been to provide some sort of examination. However, an exam might or might not be a useful or informative measure.
