We already knew it, but recently we read it in El País: according to a study by Santillana Formación, 60% of users declare that online training contributes little or nothing to improving performance. After the technical problems of access and the lack of time, users point, as obstacles, to the quality of the content and the tutelary monitoring.
The article concluded by referring both to companies, "which are not being able to integrate these systems," and to providers, "who are not quite right with the programs that satisfy users." It is a fact that, despite frequent optimistic statements, the growth of the sector is being very significantly lower than what was forecast three years ago; But the most worrying fact is the lack of effectiveness of online courses. One would say that e-learning needs a metamorphosis…, or perhaps we should think about metempsychosis: start over from scratch in this e-learning.
Three years ago, in Spain large companies were fine-tuning their platforms and launching their internal marketing campaigns.
At the same time, e-learning providers joined forces in defense of their interests, and made optimistic growth forecasts.
In these years, some companies showed off their investments in e-learning and were satisfied with the successes achieved; for example, Telefónica announced an investment of 10 million euros in 2004.
Among the providers and also for example, a prominent member of ApeL (Association of e-Learning Providers) announced in press releases a turnover of 30 million euros for 2003 (70% in e-learning), although later it seems to have remained in the fifth part: about 6 million. Certainly, the forecasts of the sector have not been satisfied, and one might wonder why.
In recent months, we have often read that, in reality, e-learning needs to be complemented with face-to-face training to achieve its objectives, and that, therefore, the best is blended learning.
The providers themselves postulated the combination of methods, obviously always with the presence of e-learning. But we also read about the googling of e-learning, which, if we understood it correctly, consisted of searching the Internet for what we needed.
I believe that, in fact, the content offered by suppliers (at the price established by the market, or forced by large customers) are not, in general, satisfactory and that, referring to courses for managers, can often be found in Internet some more enriching document (in Spanish or in another language) than the typical online pill, multimedia and interactive, about leadership, meetings, presentations, teamwork, problem solving, negotiation, etc.
I have already referred to this in previous articles, but we must return to the contents. When, having saved the technical problems and time to dedicate, users approach the content of the courses offered, they find them little or nothing enriching: that is what the study I was referring to says. In fact, in the introduction to the book “e-Learning: Best practices in Spain ” (edited by AEDIPE-Pearson and coordinated by Carlos Pelegrín, from Telefónica de España), the success of e-learning in companies is measured by volume involved (in number of hours of training or number of participants), and not because of the effectiveness that Kirkpatrick postulated: something that was surprising to me.
Best practices in Spain
Actually, the AEDIPE book (Spring 2003) - to which I have repeatedly referred - was a bit unsettling to me. Already in the second prologue things were said like: “When we talk about e-Learning we are focusing on two key elements: technology and content. However, none of them have a high correlation with the growth and success of the solution in the company ”.
And Pelegrín adds: "The truth is that the best results can be achieved with medium-quality content, while excellent content guarantees absolutely nothing, and can even lead to failure."
Perhaps - I thought when reading it - we do not interpret the same things when talking about content; but a few pages later, already in the introduction written by the book's sponsor, it reads: “The contents have been magnified during these past three or four years, without the reason being very well understood.
It is obvious that the more attractive they are and the better they have been pedagogically developed, the greater will be their acceptance by students; but it is not clear that this is the key to self-study.
Who more and who less has been forced to acquire complex knowledge with precarious means. Let's remember the university, with the available textbooks or the photocopies of the notes of the most studious of the class: more precarious contents, impossible ”.
To me these statements by José Ignacio Díez, CEO of FYCSA and vice president of APeL, seemed somewhat disturbing, because they seemed to ignore the expectations of users; In short, and if you had read correctly, in this first part of the book it was said that the success of e-learning in the company did not depend on a good quality of the courses. I decided to continue reading the book carefully.
Fortunately, the chapters that narrated "best practices" in Spain (AENA, Oracle, Ferrovial, UOC, SCH, Alcatel, Caja Madrid…), did, in general, make explicit reference to the quality of the content, and the subsequent materialization of learning and performance improvement.
There was no talk of user dissatisfaction, but a good quality was demanded in the online courses, without forgetting other necessary elements, such as the motivation of the people and the tutelary monitoring
. This satisfied me as a teacher, but then why were different messages thrown at us in the prologue and in the introduction to the book? It was not possible to think that the authors of that first part of the book (client and supplier) were wrong in relativizing the contribution of the contents, because they were two very significant voices within the sector.
But then, is quality content required or not required to consolidate the method, gain user satisfaction and obtain the desired improvement in professional performance?
What should be done?
If, as the Santillana Formación study points out, user satisfaction and learning efficiency are pending subjects in e-learning, what should be done? The study suggests that technical problems have to be neutralized, and that better products (content) and services (tutelage) have to be offered.
This columnist takes the side of those who believe so, and regrets to disagree (no less than) with the opinions of the Director of Development and Training of Telefónica de España and those of the CEO of FYCSA, authors of the first part of the AEDIPE book (Spanish Association of Personnel Directors).
I may be wrong, but I have been thinking that the consolidation of the method would have to go through the satisfaction of users, and also through the following levels of Kirkpatrick.
And that all this goes through quality content. Why don't the content have enough quality? Let us ask ourselves.
About the quality of the content
It may be thought that quality is sufficient, and also that quality is insufficient because the customer does not ask for it, or because he does not pay for it, or because there is none.
In general, I think that maybe there isn't, although I don't know if it is paid or not paid, or if one would be willing to pay it; and I offer the reader my point of view, from the modest teaching experience that began in the 1980s with Computer Aided Teaching.
The correct thing to do would be to start by defining what we call content.
It seems to me that we are calling contents to multimedia and interactive information that, like that programmed teaching printed decades ago, contains a certain dialogue with the student, to ensure the achievement of learning.
I would not consider e-learning a linear document –for example, an article or a report– obtained on the Internet, because, among other things, I would print it out to read it better.
But there will be other legitimate opinions on what we understand by content, considering also that we are beginning to talk about a certain Googleisation of e-learning.
Although my first designs in the 1980s were technical courses on Telecommunications, let me continue talking about courses for managers, which is what I know best now.
Many short-term online courses (1 to 4 hours) have been sold for the development of specific skills (leadership, communication, initiative…), and even for learning specific tasks: "Learn to negotiate successfully", "How to conduct effective meetings", etc.
I honestly do not believe that visible results can be achieved with such short courses, but, if we go to examine their contents, then I think that you have to align yourself with the majority of students, and say that they are not contributing anything or almost nothing.
I have the feeling that corporate e-learning is not driven only by teaching intentions, because I cannot imagine any vocational teacher, any teacher with autotelic performance, behind these brief courses of doubtful effectiveness. I'm sorry for the exceptions, but I myself have frustrating experiences.
When I was designing these pills online, the budget only allowed me to charge the project for a third of the time that I dedicated to it.
In other words, for every 40 hours that I charged to an online course design project, there were 80 more that appeared as hours worked and not invoiced.
The students, during the tutelary follow-up phase, told me that the courses were enjoyable, but the truth is that getting it cost me a lot of extra time. Maybe other writers were faster and more efficient than me.
However, what frustrated me the most was that my didactic scripts (I delivered them in Word or PowerPoint) were then often recomposed by technologists, whom I, from my partial point of observation, considered alien to the course topics already teaching them.
My impression, which could logically be wrong, is that authentic teachers have been lacking the leading role in the production of online courses.
I have no other way to explain this resounding fact: 60% of users declare that e-learning contributes little or nothing, and there are observers who imagined a higher percentage.
At the same time and by the way, we see other surveys that state the opposite, but that are not completed by the students but by the Human Resources areas of the companies.
Specifically, APeL maintains that 67% of companies are satisfied or very satisfied with e-learning.
Conclusions
I have already suggested it at times, but I think there are things that have not been done well and that we have to start doing better so that e-learning takes off:
- In large companies, there must be greater harmony between the expectations of the users (the students) and the Human Resources areas, which are those that buy the products and services from the suppliers.
HR areas should be at the service of users, instead of forcing them, in exchange for points or credits, to take courses that they do not consider of interest.
I believe that the motivation for learning has to be intrinsic; otherwise, it is difficult for me to think about the effectiveness sought.
- There must be greater synergy between technologists and teachers in the production of online courses, but here it must also be clear who should serve whom: the technologists the teachers, and all the users.
We cannot let technical reasons prevail over didactics, nor can we let the graphic apparatus try to cover the void of content. All of this assuming that we pursue effective learning, as I suppose.
- There must be greater harmony between suppliers and customers at a high level.
The budget that goes to teachers is too small to produce good products, and you have to think about other budget allocations.
Personally, and even thinking that the e-learning money is being spent for collective benefit, I think that doubling the didactic quality of an online course would only mean an increase in price by 20 or 30%, and would give more information to whoever asked me.
Of course, the quality must not double: it must at least triple. All this for the benefit of efficiency.
In short, without clinging to being right, but convinced of what I am saying, I submit these reflections to the reader. Hopefully e-learning will come out of the critical moment it is experiencing, but that happens by recognizing, where appropriate, the mistakes made.
