Literature Review
This literature review examines current learning trends in the corporate training environment which includes a gradual decrease in the use of instructor led training accompanied by a corresponding rise in the use of e-learning (self-paced, web based, computer controlled instruction) and blended learning (a combination of e-learning and instructor led training).
In the first section I define corporate training and examine the current trends in corporate training topic areas and learning delivery modes. I then provide an examination of the advantages and disadvantages of the delivery mode that is my chosen area of interest: e-learning. Finally, I explore if blending e-learning with instructor led training can overcome e-learning disadvantages.
Current Trends in Corporate Training
Learning within a corporate context refers to a process by which employers develop skills and acquire knowledge to improve their workplace performance (Rosenberg, 2001). Unlike education, where generalized instruction might encourage inquiry into multiple approaches, workplace training is more likely to involve teaching a learner a very specific skill, such as how to operate a piece of machinery, or how to prepare a certain food (Sleight, 1993).
With the utilitarian focus of corporate training, one could assume that formal learning content in companies tend to cluster into a group of knowledge, skills, and behaviors needed by workers to execute the smooth operation of the enterprise as well as to achieve a maximization of profit. For example, one factor involved in profit maximization for many firms is the increase of sales revenue. One way to increase sales revenue is to train employees on how to perform behaviors that lead to sales revenue gains. Since increasing sales is important, we can assume that the topic of sales is a common subject area for corporate training. Annual industry surveys conducted in 2003 and 2011 by the American Society of Training and Development corroborates this assumption by showing that, in both years, sales was one of the top ten most common content areas trained. (Miller, 2012).
Table 1 reveals the average percentage of classes devoted to the most popular content areas for formal corporate learning within a large sampling of corporations. The columns with percentages illustrate how the mix of content areas has changed from 2003 to 2011. (Miller, 2012)
In the first section I define corporate training and examine the current trends in corporate training topic areas and learning delivery modes. I then provide an examination of the advantages and disadvantages of the delivery mode that is my chosen area of interest: e-learning. Finally, I explore if blending e-learning with instructor led training can overcome e-learning disadvantages.
Current Trends in Corporate Training
Learning within a corporate context refers to a process by which employers develop skills and acquire knowledge to improve their workplace performance (Rosenberg, 2001). Unlike education, where generalized instruction might encourage inquiry into multiple approaches, workplace training is more likely to involve teaching a learner a very specific skill, such as how to operate a piece of machinery, or how to prepare a certain food (Sleight, 1993).
With the utilitarian focus of corporate training, one could assume that formal learning content in companies tend to cluster into a group of knowledge, skills, and behaviors needed by workers to execute the smooth operation of the enterprise as well as to achieve a maximization of profit. For example, one factor involved in profit maximization for many firms is the increase of sales revenue. One way to increase sales revenue is to train employees on how to perform behaviors that lead to sales revenue gains. Since increasing sales is important, we can assume that the topic of sales is a common subject area for corporate training. Annual industry surveys conducted in 2003 and 2011 by the American Society of Training and Development corroborates this assumption by showing that, in both years, sales was one of the top ten most common content areas trained. (Miller, 2012).
Table 1 reveals the average percentage of classes devoted to the most popular content areas for formal corporate learning within a large sampling of corporations. The columns with percentages illustrate how the mix of content areas has changed from 2003 to 2011. (Miller, 2012)
Since workplace learning is tightly focused on worker performance, it is no surprise that the highest percentage of content in formal corporate training in 2011 was allocated to the area of managing and supervising. Managers and supervisors are tasked with optimizing employee performance. It is also no surprise that the topic categories remained fairly stable over a period of nine years.
Table 1 does show some large changes in the training content mix from 2003 to 2011. Two examples are the reduction in IT and systems training and the increase in mandatory and compliance training. However, the causes of these changes were not examined and remain unclear. Adding to the uncertainty is the difference in sample size (278 in 2003 versus 461 in 2011). This increased sample size could have resulted in a different mix of industries from one year to the next which could correlate with a different mixture of content areas examined. Companies in the manufacturing sector, for example, focus fewer training resources on customer service than companies in the retail sector (Miller, 2012). A heavier weighting of manufacturers in 2011 could have made a proportional decrease in the percentage of programs and classes devoted to customer service. We can, however, conclude that no radical changes in the content areas occurred in the nine year difference of the data presented in Table 1.
E-Learning and Blended Learning
Starting in the late 1990’s, the availability of the Internet and intranet networks sparked a rapid adoption of e-learning within corporations. E-learning is defined as “the use of computer network technology, primarily over an intranet or through the Internet, to deliver information and instruction to individuals” (Welsh, Wanberg, Brown, & Simmering, 2003, p.246).
E-learning exists in many forms: self-paced, web based, computer controlled instruction; live webcasts; video and voice over IP; online resource links; video and audio casts; online self-assessments; email; e-books and e-docs; list servers; and online communities. The term e-learning, within the context of this paper, is limited to self-paced, web based, computer controlled instruction.
An annual 2001 survey of companies reported that 76% of formal training occurred with instructor led classes. By 2010 the same survey revealed that instructor led classroom training amongst survey respondents had reduced to 59.1% of formal training (Green & McGill, 2011). This decrease in live classroom training mirrored a proportional increase in various modes of e-learning – the most popular being self-paced and online (Green, et al., 2011). Welsh, et al. (2003) described six advantages that they claim make e-learning attractive to corporations:
1. Provides consistent, worldwide training
2. Reduces delivery cycle time
3. Increases learner convenience
4. Reduces information overload
5. Improves tracking
6. Lowers expenses (p. 248)
During the initial deployment of e-learning at the turn of the century, some large corporations were reporting large savings. International Business Machines, for example, claimed a savings of US $200 million in 1999 by replacing instructor led learning with e-learning. Similarly, Ernst and Young reduced their training budget by 35%, (Strother, 2002). Although the upfront costs for media rich, interactive self-guided training may be several times that of paper based training material used in a classroom, that cost is nonrecurring. The resulting course can then be re-used with low recurring costs. (Welsh, et al., 2003) Although cost reduction may have been an early motivator for some companies, Bersin (2004) notes that e-learning may not reduce costs but shift costs from “variable (instructor salaries and travel) to fixed (infrastructure, content development, and technology upgrades)” (p. 20).
Equally - if not more - important to many corporations are the e-learning advantages of consistency and worldwide training. For example, e-learning’s ability to instruct compliance topics with exacting consistency to tens of thousands of learners from London to Los Angeles to Beijing is quite valuable (Kapp & McKeague, 2002).
The incentives are clear for corporations deploying e-learning as a substitute for live classroom instruction, but what is the perspective of the learner regarding this shift? For the student, is self-paced e-learning as effective as or more effective than classroom instruction in changing behavior? Representatives from Unilever claim that e-learning resulted in changes in learner behavior that created an increase of US $20 million in sales performance from their sales staff (Strother, 2002). Clark and Mayer (2011) maintain that studies indicated no significant difference in learning performance between e-learning and classroom instruction. Two meta-analyses studies support Clark’s theory (Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, 2006; Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010).
Since e-learning offers significant advantages for corporations with no degradation in learning transfer, one would expect to see an almost total abandonment of instructor led classroom training. However in 2010, more than a decade after the rush to e-learning, the majority of formal learning (59.1%) still occurs with instructor led classes - albeit this percentage is steadily declining (Green, 2011).
The persistence of instructor led training implies that e-learning may have limitations or disadvantages which do not exist in the instructor led classroom setting. Mungania (2003) described seven e-learning disadvantages that are barriers in the workplace: personal learning style; differences in the way people approach learning; instructional; organizational; situational; content suitability; and technological.
Mungania (2003) noted that the most frequent barrier type is situational with the least common barrier type being the personal learning style. Although learning styles were mentioned as a barrier by Mungania (2003), Clark and Mayer (2011) discounted learning styles as a “myth” and claimed that, while learning styles are popular to practitioners, there was little or no evidence to support their existence. According to Mungania (2003), the top three e-learning situational barriers across all industries surveyed were: “over commitment to multiple roles; interruptions at work, home, or whenever one studies; and lack of time to study” (p.21). Themistocleous, Koumaditis, Mantzana, and Morabito (2010) and Frankola (2001) also confirmed that lack of time is a common barrier to completing e-learning. Frankola (2001) explained how time operates differently during instructor led training compared to e-learning:
An employee who goes to a classroom or training lab to learn usually won’t be interrupted for routine matters… But employees who learn at their desktops often face constant distractions (p. 59).
The physical separation of instructor led training from normal work duties is a key advantage that is not a characteristic of self-paced e-learning. An organization that does not provide their employees with the same amount of time to complete e-learning as given for instructor led learning will most likely see high e-learning drop-out rates (Frankola, 2001)
Mungania (2003) described four key predictors of barriers to developing an e-learning program: organizational; self-efficacy; computer competence; and computer training. The first predictor, organizational issues, can signify how the company structures the e-learning, specifically if they create available time for employees to complete e-learning. Instructor led training does not suffer from this same barrier. Learners must remove themselves from work tasks so that they can attend instructor led classes. Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes” (p. 79). Computer competence was the skill at using technology and computer training referred to the quality of the training. Mungania (2003) noted how computer competence and self-efficacy was inversely correlated with e-learning dropout rates - the lower an employee’s self-efficacy or computer competence, the higher the dropout rate. With classroom instruction, teachers can help students develop self-efficacy by encouraging learners with comments regarding the learner’s possession of certain capabilities or in developing skill in their performance (Siegle & McCoach, 2007). This type of personalized human exhortation is very difficult to offer through self-paced, computer controlled e-learning.
Classroom instruction, therefore, can overcome organizational (lack of time) and self-efficacy learning barriers. Consequently, can blending elements of instructor led classes with e-learning reduce the e-learning dropout rates through the reduction in barriers while still maintaining the advantages of e-learning? The answer to this question appears to be a tentative, “Yes.” For example, in the United Kingdom, a blended learning program for the National Health Service Information Authority achieved a 98.3% completion rate. The program started with one day of classroom instruction and the remainder of the program was comprised of e-learning with access to tutor support and peer to peer interaction (Shepard, 2003). The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) deployed course managers to encourage self-paced e-learning students, trouble shoot technical barriers, and follow-up on progress. These course managers acted as proxies for live instructors. Course managers tracked and followed up with learners regarding their progress and addressed any technical issues. With this practice, UCLA experienced e-learning completion rates rise from 50% - 60% in 1996 to 80% - 85% in 2001 (Frankola, 2001). Finally, in another study, nurses who went through e-learning with instructor-led debriefing afterwards outperformed nurses who had the same training in instructor led classrooms (Spiva, et al., 2012)
Summary
E-learning provides consistency of delivery and other powerful advantages to corporations and presents similar learning outcomes to classroom training. However, barriers to completing e-learning can result in high dropout rates or minimal learning. High e-learning drop-out rates can be reduced with the use of a blend of instructor led classroom training and e-learning. With blended learning, corporations may benefit from the advantages of e-learning while reducing the drop-out rates to bring learning completion closer to what is found with instructor led training.
PREVIOUS: The Problem
NEXT: Research Design
Table 1 does show some large changes in the training content mix from 2003 to 2011. Two examples are the reduction in IT and systems training and the increase in mandatory and compliance training. However, the causes of these changes were not examined and remain unclear. Adding to the uncertainty is the difference in sample size (278 in 2003 versus 461 in 2011). This increased sample size could have resulted in a different mix of industries from one year to the next which could correlate with a different mixture of content areas examined. Companies in the manufacturing sector, for example, focus fewer training resources on customer service than companies in the retail sector (Miller, 2012). A heavier weighting of manufacturers in 2011 could have made a proportional decrease in the percentage of programs and classes devoted to customer service. We can, however, conclude that no radical changes in the content areas occurred in the nine year difference of the data presented in Table 1.
E-Learning and Blended Learning
Starting in the late 1990’s, the availability of the Internet and intranet networks sparked a rapid adoption of e-learning within corporations. E-learning is defined as “the use of computer network technology, primarily over an intranet or through the Internet, to deliver information and instruction to individuals” (Welsh, Wanberg, Brown, & Simmering, 2003, p.246).
E-learning exists in many forms: self-paced, web based, computer controlled instruction; live webcasts; video and voice over IP; online resource links; video and audio casts; online self-assessments; email; e-books and e-docs; list servers; and online communities. The term e-learning, within the context of this paper, is limited to self-paced, web based, computer controlled instruction.
An annual 2001 survey of companies reported that 76% of formal training occurred with instructor led classes. By 2010 the same survey revealed that instructor led classroom training amongst survey respondents had reduced to 59.1% of formal training (Green & McGill, 2011). This decrease in live classroom training mirrored a proportional increase in various modes of e-learning – the most popular being self-paced and online (Green, et al., 2011). Welsh, et al. (2003) described six advantages that they claim make e-learning attractive to corporations:
1. Provides consistent, worldwide training
2. Reduces delivery cycle time
3. Increases learner convenience
4. Reduces information overload
5. Improves tracking
6. Lowers expenses (p. 248)
During the initial deployment of e-learning at the turn of the century, some large corporations were reporting large savings. International Business Machines, for example, claimed a savings of US $200 million in 1999 by replacing instructor led learning with e-learning. Similarly, Ernst and Young reduced their training budget by 35%, (Strother, 2002). Although the upfront costs for media rich, interactive self-guided training may be several times that of paper based training material used in a classroom, that cost is nonrecurring. The resulting course can then be re-used with low recurring costs. (Welsh, et al., 2003) Although cost reduction may have been an early motivator for some companies, Bersin (2004) notes that e-learning may not reduce costs but shift costs from “variable (instructor salaries and travel) to fixed (infrastructure, content development, and technology upgrades)” (p. 20).
Equally - if not more - important to many corporations are the e-learning advantages of consistency and worldwide training. For example, e-learning’s ability to instruct compliance topics with exacting consistency to tens of thousands of learners from London to Los Angeles to Beijing is quite valuable (Kapp & McKeague, 2002).
The incentives are clear for corporations deploying e-learning as a substitute for live classroom instruction, but what is the perspective of the learner regarding this shift? For the student, is self-paced e-learning as effective as or more effective than classroom instruction in changing behavior? Representatives from Unilever claim that e-learning resulted in changes in learner behavior that created an increase of US $20 million in sales performance from their sales staff (Strother, 2002). Clark and Mayer (2011) maintain that studies indicated no significant difference in learning performance between e-learning and classroom instruction. Two meta-analyses studies support Clark’s theory (Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, 2006; Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010).
Since e-learning offers significant advantages for corporations with no degradation in learning transfer, one would expect to see an almost total abandonment of instructor led classroom training. However in 2010, more than a decade after the rush to e-learning, the majority of formal learning (59.1%) still occurs with instructor led classes - albeit this percentage is steadily declining (Green, 2011).
The persistence of instructor led training implies that e-learning may have limitations or disadvantages which do not exist in the instructor led classroom setting. Mungania (2003) described seven e-learning disadvantages that are barriers in the workplace: personal learning style; differences in the way people approach learning; instructional; organizational; situational; content suitability; and technological.
Mungania (2003) noted that the most frequent barrier type is situational with the least common barrier type being the personal learning style. Although learning styles were mentioned as a barrier by Mungania (2003), Clark and Mayer (2011) discounted learning styles as a “myth” and claimed that, while learning styles are popular to practitioners, there was little or no evidence to support their existence. According to Mungania (2003), the top three e-learning situational barriers across all industries surveyed were: “over commitment to multiple roles; interruptions at work, home, or whenever one studies; and lack of time to study” (p.21). Themistocleous, Koumaditis, Mantzana, and Morabito (2010) and Frankola (2001) also confirmed that lack of time is a common barrier to completing e-learning. Frankola (2001) explained how time operates differently during instructor led training compared to e-learning:
An employee who goes to a classroom or training lab to learn usually won’t be interrupted for routine matters… But employees who learn at their desktops often face constant distractions (p. 59).
The physical separation of instructor led training from normal work duties is a key advantage that is not a characteristic of self-paced e-learning. An organization that does not provide their employees with the same amount of time to complete e-learning as given for instructor led learning will most likely see high e-learning drop-out rates (Frankola, 2001)
Mungania (2003) described four key predictors of barriers to developing an e-learning program: organizational; self-efficacy; computer competence; and computer training. The first predictor, organizational issues, can signify how the company structures the e-learning, specifically if they create available time for employees to complete e-learning. Instructor led training does not suffer from this same barrier. Learners must remove themselves from work tasks so that they can attend instructor led classes. Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes” (p. 79). Computer competence was the skill at using technology and computer training referred to the quality of the training. Mungania (2003) noted how computer competence and self-efficacy was inversely correlated with e-learning dropout rates - the lower an employee’s self-efficacy or computer competence, the higher the dropout rate. With classroom instruction, teachers can help students develop self-efficacy by encouraging learners with comments regarding the learner’s possession of certain capabilities or in developing skill in their performance (Siegle & McCoach, 2007). This type of personalized human exhortation is very difficult to offer through self-paced, computer controlled e-learning.
Classroom instruction, therefore, can overcome organizational (lack of time) and self-efficacy learning barriers. Consequently, can blending elements of instructor led classes with e-learning reduce the e-learning dropout rates through the reduction in barriers while still maintaining the advantages of e-learning? The answer to this question appears to be a tentative, “Yes.” For example, in the United Kingdom, a blended learning program for the National Health Service Information Authority achieved a 98.3% completion rate. The program started with one day of classroom instruction and the remainder of the program was comprised of e-learning with access to tutor support and peer to peer interaction (Shepard, 2003). The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) deployed course managers to encourage self-paced e-learning students, trouble shoot technical barriers, and follow-up on progress. These course managers acted as proxies for live instructors. Course managers tracked and followed up with learners regarding their progress and addressed any technical issues. With this practice, UCLA experienced e-learning completion rates rise from 50% - 60% in 1996 to 80% - 85% in 2001 (Frankola, 2001). Finally, in another study, nurses who went through e-learning with instructor-led debriefing afterwards outperformed nurses who had the same training in instructor led classrooms (Spiva, et al., 2012)
Summary
E-learning provides consistency of delivery and other powerful advantages to corporations and presents similar learning outcomes to classroom training. However, barriers to completing e-learning can result in high dropout rates or minimal learning. High e-learning drop-out rates can be reduced with the use of a blend of instructor led classroom training and e-learning. With blended learning, corporations may benefit from the advantages of e-learning while reducing the drop-out rates to bring learning completion closer to what is found with instructor led training.
PREVIOUS: The Problem
NEXT: Research Design