Comparing eLearning and Classroom Learning through Real-Word Scenarios

This post is the last in a series about online training and traditional classroom learning. I hope you've enjoyed the previous posts - take a look at them if you havn't read them yet! This subject will hopefully be addressed again in the future.

So we’ve talked extensively about the pros and cons of online training and of traditional classroom learning. But these have been abstract subjects; I’d like to give some concrete examples.

The first is sports training. Online sports training. Seems pretty farfetched, doesn’t it? How can you train someone in a sport online? Well, the rules of many games are taught in classrooms through PowerPoint lectures. Why not make it interactive and do it online, where it’s much more accessible? Now, the problem with this is that there can be no substitute for on-field experience, especially if you’re training game officials or coaches. That’s why blended eLearning and face-to-face training can be extremely effective: the eLearning can save time and costs for students, while the blended learning allows them to gain the full educational experience.

How about a huge corporation that’s doing employee training over a specified period of time? It has hundreds, if not thousands, of employees to train in a specific subject matter. There needs to be tracking, course management, and reporting. So the corporation turns to a learning management system. The employees don’t have to travel, no classrooms need to be rented, and the corporation does not have to hire teaching professionals, saving it heaps of time and money. However, there is an incident in which an employee (or several) violate corporate rules or make a serious mistake, despite being taught against his/their actions. How does the corporation handle this? Does it totally cancel its eLearning program, or only punish the individuals responsible? How does it identify whether it was the irresponsibility of the employee(s), or ineffectiveness of the eLearning program? These are difficult questions, but important ones, for a large corporation trying to fulfill its training needs.

Finally, let’s take a college class that, experimentally, is going to be taught exclusively online (this has been done before!). The professor is going to conduct the class through various online sessions over a few weeks. Students log on to an e-classroom, and listen as the professor lectures through a microphone. Audio and video are streamed to the students, who can quickly type notes. There is a chat window to instant-message questions to the professor. This sounds like an effective learning environment, right? The professor gets the added bonus of being able to bring up certain videos or images to enrich his lecture. This is a definite advantage of eLearning. A problem arises, however, if the service is interrupted for either a student or the professor. Even if the session is being recorded, the student misses the opportunity of experiencing it live. Hopefully this highlights the importance of using a reliable service provider.

These examples should give you a clear example of some of the advantages and disadvantages of both online training and traditional classroom learning.

Is eLearning or in-person, classroom learning better? It’s subjective, and it’s completely up to the individual conducting the training. The clearest answer is that it is often a case-by-case basis. Certainly eLearning has been proven effective in many instances. But whether or not a company can make effective use of eLearning is completely up to it.

Categorizing Facets of Training

This post is part of a series concerning the differences between traditional classroom learning and online training or “e-Learning” and the various aspects of each.

We talked last post about some of the negative aspects of online training. So how can an eLearning company work around them? Can all of them be mitigated?

Essentially I addressed interaction/collaboration, service issues, and content as three possible weak areas of online training in the last post. I also touched on how they can be alleviated, to some degree. But here, I’d like to get a little more specific.

Interaction and collaboration are probably the hardest aspects of education to replicate in an online environment. I’ve talked in the past about possible methods of accomplishing this, and posed the question, “Do the other benefits of online training outweigh the potential interaction lost by not using a traditional classroom setting?” As I have previously mentioned, this question is at the heart of the debate between eLearning and traditional classroom education. But it may be difficult to understand just how important this question is. It is the “be all, end all” for companies deciding which method of learning to use. You may think that this would be cost, which is true, to a certain degree. But for a company to have a successful training program in the long run, it has to effectively educate students. So, the company must decide whether the cost and other benefits from using eLearning outweigh any potential educational value lost by not using face-to-face learning. Will in-person learning always be a required part of education? Can education effectively take place if it is exclusively online? The debate continues, with no end in sight.

I won’t spend much time on connection and service issues, as I covered them thoroughly enough in the last post. Companies just need to be careful when choosing a provider and providers must be watchful that their services remain intact and secure. Similar problems exist for classroom learning, so I don’t consider this to be a major issue.

Content was also addressed extensively in the last post. The traditional classroom setting and an eLearning environment differ in the ways content is used. In the last post I mentioned that I thought there was greater potential for content on the online side due to the wonders of technology. Certainly this can be applied to classroom training, but I think that it’s much easier to use in an online course.

Although I believe that eLearning has better potential in terms of educational content, I, like many education professionals (of which I am not), am still on the fence about the debate over face-to-face learning versus online training. I think that some training will require in-person interaction for many years to come, possibly forever. As I have talked about in pervious posts, I believe that the best solution is an intuitive blend of live, in-person training with a rich and enthralling eLearning environment.

Well, I didn't provide you with concrete examples. I will devote the next post to them, in order to illustrate the points made in this one and the last one.

Addressing the Downfalls of Online Training

This post is part of a series concerning the differences between traditional classroom learning and online training or “e-Learning” and the various aspects of each.

We’ve talked about how effective online training can be, how it can save money and time, and often provide an equally enriching experience as an equivalent lesson in the classroom. But naturally, nothing is perfect. There are some negative facets of eLearning. We’ve addressed some of them in past posts, but I’d like to reiterate and add to the list, and perhaps differentiate between true “negative” aspects of eLearning and problems that could feasibly be solved.

I’m going to lump instructor interaction and peer collaboration into one category here. Essentially, they both relate to the live interaction that is so important to education. Naturally there can be no “live” (or, more accurately, in-person) interaction using eLearning. Video streaming and live chat functions can alleviate this problem, of course. But many ask the question: Is it really the same? The answer is a subject of many debates and disagreements. Perhaps the more relevant question is: Do the other benefits of online training outweigh the potential interaction lost by not using a traditional classroom setting? I know that’s a confusing bunch of sentences to chew through, but these musings are at the center of the debate between eLearning and classroom training.

Connection and service issues can arise as well. The responsibility for maintaining working content depends on the party who is hosting that content. So, if you have thousands of people using an online training course, and something happens to interrupt the service of the host, you end up with a major problem. This is why it’s important to consider carefully who will be hosting the online training content and who will be responsible for its maintenance. Of course, there can be similar problems with in-class training. At the most obvious and basic level, a power outage would make it impossible to conduct a class, and inclement weather would make it difficult to travel. Also, convenience has to be taken into account – few people appreciate having to travel to a location that is often far from their home for a few hours of training. So service can be a difficult factor for both mediums of training.

Finally, content. Possibly the most important aspect of eLearning. I think that there is greater potential for content in terms of what can be developed using technology versus a live classroom session. For example, using computers one can create powerful graphics and animations that are impossible to replicate in a live setting. Without effective content, there will be no retention of the education materials. But it’s also important to note that without an effective Learning Management System (LMS), or content delivery mechanism, there will be no way to accurately convey the content. Basically, content is only as good as the system that backs it up. In my opinion, content and system go hand in hand. It’s important to develop great content, and perhaps just as important to have a method of delivering this content to users.

Phew, that was a lot of material. And I didn’t even get to the question from the last post: “Which negative aspects of online training can be mitigated, and what must stay exclusively in the classroom?” I’ll tackle it in the next post with some concrete examples.

Making Online Training Work

This post is part of a series concerning the differences between traditional classroom learning and online training or “e-Learning” and the various aspects of each.

What’s good about learning in a live, classroom environment? Well, you can ask questions of the teacher. You can collaborate with your peers. You can watch live demonstrations directly. So how could online training possibly replace traditional classroom learning?

Well, I have my doubts as to whether it ever fully will. However, I have confidence that online training will be used more frequently in place of certain mundane class lectures. Not all lectures or classroom sessions are dull and boring, but many could certainly be described as such. Allow me to address each beneficial facet of classroom training with what I believe to be a suitable solution using eLearning.

Possibly the biggest advantage of classroom learning is the fact that the student can directly ask the teacher questions. This allows for dynamic learning limited only by the teacher’s own knowledge, meaning that the student’s learning experience is completely fulfilling as long as he/she asks questions within the teacher’s knowledge. The teacher/student relationship has been of the utmost importance since ancient times. Online content will likely never be able to identically mimic the social cues and natural flow of an in-person conversation, but I believe that streaming video or even a live chat feature could alleviate most losses. The ability to ask questions is key – and even though live chat over the internet cannot completely replicate personal interaction, it can give students the opportunity to voice their uncertainties on certain topics – and allow teachers to answer them.

Peer collaboration is very similar to teacher interaction, and can be solved through online training the same way. Social media has proven this. Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking sites are essentially hubs of collaboration that can be used in many different ways. Why not apply the same context to online training? The use of a “virtual classroom” where students can send each other messages, questions, and thoughts is a perfect environment to foster collaboration and idea sharing, which are extraordinarily important to the learning process. Expanding it further, many sites such as Blackboard have the capability to create discussion boards (forums) that allow students to discuss lectures and classroom sessions after they have been completed.

Finally, we have live demonstrations. This includes visually “acting out” difficult or abstract concepts. With the advances in technology and graphic design in the past decade, I think that this facet would be the easiest to move online. Three-dimensional animations can be used to represent topics that would be difficult to explain with just words and static pictures. In an online environment, the integration of visual content and lecture notes is much easier and more effective. Live or recorded video of real people can even be used if one is hesitant about exclusively using virtual animations.

In the next post I’ll address some of the concerns with online training, and the question, “Which negative aspects of online training can be mitigated, and what must stay exclusively in the classroom?”

Traditional Classroom Learning

This post is part of a series concerning the differences between traditional classroom learning and online training or “e-Learning” and the various aspects of each.

I’d like to take a look at the views of the traditional classroom teaching camp. Some of the things that I’m going to talk about relate directly to this article:
http://www.computeruser.com/articles/2407,5,88,1,0701,05.html

It’s a relatively old article by the CEO of a classroom-based IT training company, so the information is somewhat biased and should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I think that the ideas the article poses are legitimate. Note that this opinion reflects those who are almost completely against e-Learning – we’ll address the middle ground at a later date.

Essentially, the article’s argument is that despite the hype surrounding e-Learning, it is a subpar learning method compared to traditional classroom learning. The author references numerous studies and statistics (not cited) to show that a majority of learners find their e-Learning experiences to be less than amazing. One major premise that is brought up is that e-Learning eliminates or downgrades the social interaction that is vital to an enriching learning experience. The article acknowledges that some e-Learning programs are trying to blend classroom training with online training, but the author’s criticism of this is that these programs have “morphed into what [they are] trying to replace.”

I agree with some of what the author has to stay. Certainly the loss of face-to-face interaction has a negative impact on the quality of education a student receives. The ability to ask questions, talk with classmates, and get clarification on uncertain topics is lost. The author states that “humans, by nature, learn best through social interaction.” This claim is likely accurate: a collaborative environment fosters teamwork and the sharing of ideas. If an individual is unsure of a situation, it’s probable that the ideas of others will encourage the development of a solution.

However, I take issue with the assertion that online training that tries to blend its program with traditional classroom teaching is trying to “morph” into pure classroom training. The author is taking a stance that suggests that online training can in no way, ever, replace classroom training (note that he is referring to IT training specifically). I think that a blended approach could be just as successful as pure classroom training, given that the students are presented with effective online materials.

So what are these effective materials? What features make online training go from being a dull redundancy of classroom lecture notes into an interactive and engaging learning experience? We’ll talk about it in the next post.

What Exactly is Online Training?

This post is part of a series concerning the differences between traditional classroom learning and online training or “e-Learning” and the various aspects of each.

Most of you probably know what I’m referring to when I talk about “online training courses.” Even if you’ve never taken one, you’ve probably seen ads for them or heard about them from a friend or co-worker. Some herald them as the wave for the future for education, while others are more than a little skeptical. But for now I’m going to step away from the debate. Don’t worry. We’ll come back to it. However, I’d like to elaborate a little on what exactly “online training” can entail.

Although it is accurate to think of a PowerPoint presentation or perhaps even a colorful Macromedia Flash application as “e-Learning,” this overarching term has come to encompass so much more. Innovative thinkers are discovering new ways to promote education through unconventional mediums. This can be seen primarily in the online gaming world, specifically in Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs). The game I’d like to highlight is Second Life, developed several years ago by Linden Labs.

In Second Life, players can create three-dimensional, animated representations of themselves known as “avatars.” Once an avatar is created, a player can enter the game “world,” a virtual environment that simulates real-world phenomenon such as shopping, chatting with friends, and visiting locales. Essentially, the player is open to do whatever he or she wants, provided that his or her actions fall within the game’s programming capabilities.

So we have this open virtual world. We have this area that anyone on earth can access, where people are free to live out their virtual lives, completely separated from their real ones. What does this have to do with education? Well, because the Second Life environment is so open, educators have realized that it provides a brilliant solution for distance learning. By holding virtual classes in rooms or locales created by users, instructors are able to communicate directly with students from anywhere. Second Life’s functions allow users to create objects to illustrate concepts, a useful teaching tool. It also includes chat features which allow students and instructors to stay in constant contact.

Think this is a farfetched idea? It may be in its infant stages, but institutions such as Harvard University, Princeton University, Rice University, and many others have already begun to make use of it. And Second Life is not the only solution for distance learning. It helps provide a viable model for future e-Learning and it shows us what features make online education effective.

To find out how real-word businesses and institutions have used Second Life, follow this link: http://secondlifegrid.net/about/how

Classroom Training vs. Online Learning: The Great Debate

In the previous few posts, I’ve talked about Application Service Providers: the industry, facets of an ASP, and some issues associated with using one. Now I’d like to get more specific and address a certain subsection of the ASP industry – one that is rapidly growing and attracting controversy.

Has your business ever requested that you take on online course? Or have you ever taken one yourself, to learn about a specific subject? What did you like about it? Do you think it was effective? Do you think that you could have learned more by taking a similar course in a classroom environment? These questions are the center of controversy for the arguments between classroom teaching and online training. Advocates for traditional classroom training over e-learning have argued that a student has a less enriching experience using online training, while supporters of e-learning have asserted that there are many benefits associated with it and the experience is just as illuminating as classroom learning.

The next series of posts will deal with the arguments of each side, and the validity of their claims. It will address issues faced by both sides, and their challenges in an ever-expanding technical world. I’d like to get a dialogue going about the advantages and disadvantages of both – specifically, what traditionally classroom-taught subjects can and cannot be effectively replaced by online training? Is anything lost by moving to the virtual classroom? If so, what methods can one implement to make up for this loss?

“What is important is to keep learning, to enjoy challenge, and to tolerate ambiguity. In the end there are no certain answers.”
-Martina Horner

Application Service Provider Security

I found this interesting article by Cisco Systems: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/security/intelligence/asp-eval.html

Essentially it highlights the importance of using a secure application service provider and outlines Cisco Systems’ criteria for identifying one.

As we have previously discussed, there are numerous benefits associated with using an application service provider. However, there can be some issues with security. These issues can, of course, be alleviated using resources such as the link above. But I would like to touch on why businesses need to be aware of security concerns and careful when choosing an application service provider.

When a company uses an ASP, they are basically giving data to a third party for a specific purpose. One can clearly see the risks with such an action. Handing over data for any company is no small task – not only is the volume of data often large, its security is vital to the company’s success. This data can include anything from client information to trade secrets. A company cannot afford loss of data or loss of security. That’s why there is an enormous amount of pressure on application service providers to provide security and safeguards for every client’s data.

ASPs need to be financially secure and trustworthy, as they are often tasked with handling sensitive data. Companies should be aware of an ASP’s reputation and have a close connection with the ASP if there is to be a successful relationship.

The Benefits of Using an Application Service Provider, Continued

Last post I discussed some of the benefits of using Application Service Providers. Allow me to go right ahead and continue from where we left off:

4. Accessibility
Let’s take the example company we used in the last post. This company has locations around the world, and thousands of employees. These employees are located in different time zones, have different sleeping habits, different responsibilities… Using an ASP means that these employees can access their required programs any day, any time, from anywhere. It’s expected that the content will always be up-to-date and ready to use, meaning that employees will be able to access the latest software and data whenever they need. As I mentioned in the last post, having this software in one place, on servers hosted by the ASP, allows constant access for a company’s employees.

5. Simplification/Consolidation of Data
We have discussed the fact that using an ASP allows a company to access software easily, saving it time and money. These general benefits are certainly important, but I’d also like to address a benefit that may not be as obvious. A feature that many ASPs include as part of their programs is data tracking. This means that as users complete certain tasks, data is recorded for later viewing. As an example, if a company was using a training program, the software would likely track the courses completed by the company’s employees. An ASP can then take this data and simplify it for viewing, a feature associated with reporting. The result? Administrators and users are able to access simple, easy-to-read data located in one place, a major advantage for large businesses.

I hope I’ve given you some insight into the positive qualities of Application Service Providers. The industry is difficult to understand, but with these posts, hopefully you’ve been getting a clearer vision of what it is that we do!

The Benefits of Using an Application Service Provider

Imagine you are part of a large company. The company owns offices in 6 different countries, not to mention multiple locations in the country in which it is based. The company is responsible for training fifteen hundred employees, all of whom also need a certain program to perform their tasks. Is the company going to have them travel all over the globe to attend classes, and is the company going to buy software for each of its business locations, and for each employee? There must be some sort of centralized system to complete these tasks effectively.

This example illustrates a situation in which an application service provider would be helpful. Let’s analyze why:

1. Time Efficiency
Communication over the internet is extraordinarily rapid, often instantaneous. A large company, busy with its day-to-day functions and work, doesn’t have much extra time to spend coordinating its employees and locations. It needs to maintain fast and effective contact. Using an application service provider (ASP) allows a client to access programs from anywhere, as long as he/she has an internet connection. This means that as long as the ASP maintains its servers, the services are available 24/7, a huge advantage for large businesses.

2. Cost Efficiency
This one goes along with time efficiency, in a way. There are several practical areas in which a company saves money by using an ASP. One is travel costs. Flying employees from around the country, or across the world, to a certain location is extremely expensive and difficult to coordinate. Not only does using an ASP eliminate travel requirements, it also eliminates the need for renting space and paying instructors for training. Using online training through an ASP is considerably less expensive than using traditional in-class instruction at a specific location.

3. Organization
Downloading and updating software for hundreds (or thousands) of employees can become a big mess, and at the very least is time-consuming and a hassle. Using an ASP means that everything that an employee needs is located in one place, easy to access, and well-organized. Because all the information is located in the same area on the web and there is no need to download or update anything, employees can easily complete whatever task needs to be done in the shortest amount of time. Tracking features are often included on web-based applications, which provide both administrators and users a simple way of organizing data.

Next week, I’ll continue this post and discuss Accessibility and Simplification/Consolidation of Data. Stay tuned!

Application Service Providers

In the last blog I discussed the difficulties of marketing our services. I did not delve into what it is that we do, though. In this post, I’m going to describe the Application Service Provider (ASP) business model and the services that ASPs provide.

Application Service Providers develop web-based software for their clients. The ASP umbrella encompasses many different types of businesses, and a business is certainly not limited to exclusively following an ASP model. In general, ASPs will create software and host servers, allowing their clients to access their services through the internet. The needs of clients vary greatly, so ASPs often have to develop very specific content for a certain client. On the other hand, many clients share certain needs, and sometimes an application framework can be manipulated only slightly for different clients.

The idea behind using an ASP is that the software is completely web-based. This makes it so that a client does not have to download anything or pursue any updates. It is the responsibility of the ASP to keep its services up-to-date. A major advantage to exclusively web-based services is accessibility. Because the company hosts the software, clients can simply log on to a website and start using the service right away. This is especially useful to big companies who are spread across many states or countries.

The ASP industry is extremely diverse and constantly changing, one of the reasons why it is difficult to give a general description of it. However, I hope that I’ve helped you to get a better understanding of ASPs and their purpose through this post. On the next blog, I’ll get more specific about the advantages of the ASP model.

The Challenges of Marketing Application Services

If someone asked me to describe what we do, I would say something like, “We provide web-based solutions to help maximize profit and efficiency for your business.” This is easy enough to understand – we develop programs, accessible online, that save your business time and money. Perhaps a little generic, but certainly accurate. The problem arises when we try to get more specific. People may ask, “What exactly do you create? What do your programs do?” It can get tricky here, because explaining our applications to those without an extensive background in the application service provider (ASP) industry can be a difficult task.

Allow me a moment for a quick sidebar. I ran our website through a website grader, which, among many other things, analyzed the education level required to read and understand the content on the site. The grader returned a rating of Advanced / Doctoral Degree. I was surprised and somewhat perturbed by this, though upon reflection, I realized that it just shows how difficult it is to convey the functions of our services.

I think the main reason for this is that our services are stooped deep in technology, and many of our clients are involved in telecommunications and very knowledgeable about the industry. They understand the language we use with ease, while others may consider it jargon.

So the question becomes, who do we want to read our site? Obviously we want as many people as possible to visit, but we do have a target audience. The challenge is keeping the language simple and understandable while accurately conveying all the key features of our services. As we broaden our target audience, we need to ensure that our content is coherent, but not lose any important information.