MET:Corporate E-Learning

From UBC Wiki

This page was originally authored by Bruce Spencer (2009). This page was reviewed and updated by Andrea McLagan (2010) and again by Julie Simonsen (2011).


Overview

File:Moodle sample.jpg
Screen from sample course in Moodle, an open source LMS

Corporate e-Learning refers to corporate training and educational programs that are developed using Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and delivered to learners through a variety of technical platforms, including Learning Management Systems, Course Management Systems, Intranets, the Internet, or stand-alone modules. E-Learning content may be developed using reusable learning objects which enable designers to deliver more personalized programs.(Han, Dick, Case, & Van Slyke, 2009)[1]

The perceived benefits of implementing e-learning solutions include:

  • greater flexibility for scheduling training,
  • the opportunity for just-in-time learning,
  • the ability to track employees’ progress and achievement, and
  • an increased ability to tailor programs to students’ learning or career needs.

However, perhaps the most persuasive benefit has been the opportunity for cost savings in the form of decreased training times, travel costs, and time away from work, as well as the ability to train larger numbers of employees at once. (Macphersen et al., 2004). [2]

In 1999, IBM reported savings of $200 million when they adopted e-learning as their primary training delivery method. Newton and Doonga (2007) report that the savings are continuing with Ernst and Young reporting savings in reduced training expenses of 35% when they moved 80% of their training online (p. 119).[3]

Market

Corporate E-learning is a lucrative endeavor: pundits predicted that in 2009 the American e-learning market would hit $16.7 billion, and grow to $23.8 billion by 2014, with corporate groups leading the way in spending. (Reuters, 2009)[4]

There are a number of organizations that continue to innovate in this area and are considered market leaders. IBM is a good example of a Fortune 500 company that has been studied for its Corporate e-Learning approach. (Tai, 2010). [5] More than a decade after they first switched to e-learning, IBM continues to integrate additional technologies, following the advice of Berry & Moore (2008) “The world of ‘point and click’ online education must evolve”. [6]

History

E-learning began in the 1990s with the expansion of the Internet and increases in computer processing speeds that could support rich digital content. Since that time, corporate e-learning programs have been widely adopted as a solution to achieve “skill-based organisational outcomes” (Luor, Hu, & Lu, 2009, p. 713-714).[7] According to a 2001 study, 80% of Fortune 500 companies had already implemented e-learning solutions or planned to do so in the near future (Macpherson, Elliot, Harris, & Homan 2004)[8].

Lamoureux (2010)[9], a research analyst with Bersin & Associates, describes how approaches to corporate e-learning have evolved

1990’s: Traditional and CD ROM Training

Early 2000’s: Start of e-Learning with online self study materials with a focus on providing information

Mid 2000’s: Mixed Media and smart use e.g. M-Learning

2010 & Beyond: focus on formalization and collaboration. Focussing on formalization requires an emphasis on academic theories that support a value driven approach to e-learning designs.


Technology Trends

Expansion in Corporate e-learning is being driven by the integration of Web 2.0 - (see Web 2.0 - An Overview) and the resulting Learn 2.0 platforms. The concept of Learn 2.0 has emerged with new methods that are being developed to take advantage of Web 2.0 functionality. A key component of Web 2.0 is the increased capability to support social learning through the use of blogs, wikis, podcasts, VLEs, and MUVEs. (Seely Brown and Alder, 2008)[10]

Learn 2.0 and Social Networking

Social Networking Sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and MySpace, offer a number of educational opportunities and are considered part of a range of technologies which support social learning. Workplaces are taking advantage of these technologies to engage employees, build relationships and enhance learning. (Yap and Joost, 2010).[11]

Microcontent

Microcontent refers to small bits of information like that which is captured in blogs, wikis, RRS feeds, and Twitter posts. Microcontent is being leveraged in corporate e-learning systems by capturing the knowledge of the existing community and helping employees to learn from one another.(Bersin, 2007).[12]


Mobile Learning

Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) has the capacity to transform the delivery of training, bringing new meaning to just-in-time training. With M-Learning, corporations can offer employees training via their Personal Digital Device (PDA). Limitations include screen size, transfer rates and storage capacity exist but the technology continues to improve even in these areas (Herridge, 2002). [13]

Peer-to-Peer

Peer-to-peer (P2P) is a networking technology designed to share resources amongst multiple computers via a file server to multiple users who are then able to access, communicate and collaborate using the same resources. Primarily a system for information exchange, P2P does foster learning through the sharing of this information within the context of a working knowledge community, even if it’s only at a basic level (Herridge, 2002). [14]

Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)

Examples of VLE environments are LMSs such as Moodle, Blackboard, and Desire2Learn. A LMS can provide functionality beyond a typical corporate Content Management System (CMS) by supporting online learner interactions, grading, and assessments. A LMS may also integrate other Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs, wikis, and RRS feeds.

Multi-User Virtual Environment (MUVE)

While Corporate E-learning has its roots in digital stand alone content it has rapidly progressed in parellel with the development of high speed Internet infrastructure and faster computer processing speeds which are capable of delivering rich content. (Williams, Yee, & Caplan, 2008, cited by Whelan, 2008).[15] MUVEs provide an environment where learners can interact through virtual characters called avatars. Interactions through avatars have been found to be similar to the experience of video conferencing but there are barriers to entry such as the learning curve of working within the MUVE environment. (Whelan, 2008).[16]

IBM has taken advantage of the MUVE environment Second Life to enable a more immersive experience for learners. IBM engaged a team of university computer science students to create a Second Life world called the Virtual Education Center (VEC), with the goal of providing “an innovative method of delivering IBM product education in an immersive and interactive environment” in a “3D environment that allows users to visualize IBM hardware and software” (Berry & Moore, 2008, n.p.)[17]. In this environment, learners physically explore huge versions of actual IT environments, navigating them through enormous tubes that represent Ethernet cables. To introduce the system, the team created videos in Second Life that they posted on YouTube to familiarize learners with the goals and setup of the system.

Serious Games

Serious games are beginning to be noticed in the Corporate world where companies are finding benefits in exercises for collaboration, brainstorming, and performance evaluations. According to Forbes magazine serious games are being used in Canada to train border crossing guards and cities like New York where game simulations are used for emergency management training. (Casserly, 2010).[18]

Approaches

Model for leveraging social learning technologies

Corporate instructional designers are not required to apply the same amount of rigour as what would be expected in an academic environment. However, there are strategies and frameworks available that assist corporate designers to establish effective corporate e-learning programs. For example Joost and Robin (2010)[19] have developed a theoretical framework to support the use of social learning technologies in the workplace. The model is built upon building trust in a context of profiling, connecting, and sharing concepts to support the construction of knowledge and social capital.

Elements of a successful implementation

E-Learning courses that offer learners situated materials relevant to their roles, and are seen as necessary rather than optional, are more likely to be happily adopted and lauded by employees (Luor, Hu, & Lu, 2009).[20]

From a planning perspective, sufficient learning structures and executive buy-in must exist to support a successful e-learning system rollout. The Juhasz Development Group identified some key factors for successful corporate e-learning implementation (Herridge, 2002)[21]

  • a clear strategy and business case,
  • sufficient budget,
  • established theory of instructional design that will accommodate a variety of learning styles, including those not suited to online learning,
  • support from senior management,
  • technical infrastructure able to support the implementation, and
  • direction to nurture a “learning culture” and support a corporate shift to this style of learning.

Corporations need to understand that failing to create an overall eLearning strategy prior to implementing an eLearning program typically ends in failure most often due to a lack of foresight, poor decision making and an underfunded program.

This 3 minute video looks at taking into consideration the stakeholders' needs when implementing the corporate e-learning design strategy.

Evaluation Method Underlying many Corporate e-Learning designs is the Kirkpatrick Learning Evaluation Model which was developed by Dr. Don Kirkpatrick in the 1950s and is still in use today. The model was developed as a simpler version of Bloom's Taxonomy for structuring and evaluating learning models. The "Kirkpatrick model" includes four levels of reaction, learning, behaviour, and results.

The Kirkpatrick model has been criticized for being too simplistic and often not fully implemented within corporations. Holton (1996)[22] criticizes the simplicity of the four level taxonomy of outcomes which minimizes or ignores other variables such as motivation, trainability, job attitudes, personality, and training conditions. Holton argues that a more integrated model that looks at causal relationships with these variables could provide a more integrative evaluation model for the work place.

Where to start ?

Compared to traditional didactic training sessions, e-learning can provide a rich corporate training experience that is difficult to replicate in person.(Chen,2010) It offers an autonomous experience that is paced to suit individual needs of the learner and the material offers support to them when they need it, it’s always available.(Chen,2010)

In order to achieve optimal results, it is essential to understand some of the core learning theories in order to appropriately design and execute e-training modules.(Alzaghoul,2013) It is recommended that educators begin with a needs analysis, set clear learning goals, conduct evaluations and provide opportunities to practice and receive feedback.(Stavredes, 2011) E-learning programs are not intended to completely replace the corporate trainer but be used in a blended learning environment.(Chen,2010, Cheng, 2012)

A successful e-learning experience should be based upon the science of learning + incorporate a blended combination of the following 3 learning theories:

Behaviourists’ strategies should be used to teach, the “what”. This usually means to demonstrate the required skill by breaking it down into chunks with explanation before the learners are expected to replicate the desired behaviour. This theory looks at observable behaviours that can also be measured.(Chu,2016,Stavredes, 2011)

Cognitive strategies should be used to teach the principles and processes, the “how”.

Cognitive theories argue that the minds ‘black box’ should not only be opened but also understood.(Alzaghoul, 2013) While it also states that learning involves memory use, reflection, thinking and motivation, it suggests that curriculums should stimulate short and long term memory and motivate while avoiding cognitive overload.(Alzaghoul, 2013) The processing capacity of each learner will vary depending on their existing knowledge structure and they all will have unique needs and backgrounds.(Alzaghoul, 2013, chu, 2016) Due to these individual differences, online educators will need to include a divers set of learning strategies in order to accommodate everyone.(Alzaghoul, 2013, Chu,2016) Again, the content should be chunked to prevent cognitive overload and should not exceed 5-9 items to learn. Educators are encouraged to use linear, hierarchical or spider-shaped information maps.(Alzaghoul, 2013)

Constructivist theory involves the active construction of knowledge based on the learners past experiences. Learners should be exposed to activities that allow them to contextualize the information and the educator should not only observe and assess but also engage and pose questions while they are completing the activities. Promoting collaborative learning, reasoning and giving the learners control over the learning process should be encouraged. This theory encourages learning that is meaningful and illustrative.(Alzaghoul, 2013)

This short Stop Motion video demonstrates the importance of building a learning landscape for corporations, founded upon the science of learning.(Mauro, 2017)"" https://youtu.be/9jL9LuHg8xA

Alzaghoul, A. (2013).The implication of the learning theories on the implementing E-learning courses. Retrieved from http://ijj.acm.org/volumes/volume2/issue2/ijjvol2no5.pdf

Chen, H. J. (2010). Linking employees’e-learning system use to their overall job outcomes: An empirical study based on the IS success model. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1628-1639.

Cheng, B., Wang, M., Moormann, J., Olaniran, B. A., & Chen, N. S. (2012). The effects of organizational learning environment factors on e-learning acceptance. Computers & Education, 58(3), 885-899.

Stavredes, T. (2011). Effective online teaching: Foundations and strategies for student success. San Francisco, CA: Fossey-Bass


Challenges and Criticisms

Corporate e-Learning programs have been touted as a cost-effective and flexible approach for delivering training, but research has shown that these are not always the results it achieves. There are a number of challenges and criticisms of these programs.

High drop-out rates

High attrition rates have always been seen as one of the key challenges with any kind of distance education. One hypothesis for why this occurs suggests that students’ perception of “self-efficacy” and the “locus of control” plays a key role. Martinez studied adults involved in e-learning, and “suggests that learners with a strong internal locus of control show greater motivation and persistence in their eLearning endeavours than believe their lives are controlled by external events.” (Tyler-Smith, nd).[23] From a student perspective, the factors that led to drop-outs were “a lack of time, a lack of motivation, poorly designed courses and incompetent instructors.” (Tyler-Smith, n.d.)[24]

Cost

Despite the promised cost savings, implementing e-learning solutions involves significant investments of both time and money, often greater than initially expected. Issues that can arise include “bandwidth and legacy systems” that hamper migration to a new platform (Macpherson, Elliot, Harris & Homan, 2004, p. 303).[25]

Technology driven, not learning theory driven

E-learning developers have been criticized for their failure to develop learner-centred programs, instead being driven by the technology (Macpherson, Elliot, Harris, & Homan, 2004; Adams & Morgan, 2007).[26] According to Adams and Morgan (2007)[27], “the premature drive to technology standards (such as SCORM, IEEE, ADL etc.) has resulted in a ‘tail wagging the dog’ phenomenon where technology, not the purpose for which the technology is used, seems to be driving much of the industry” (p. 158). Others have criticised the technological limitations that “may undermine the technical possibilities of creating stimulating learning environments” (Macpherson et al., 2004, p. 299). [28]

Learning Theories

To be effective corporate e-learning must be built upon a foundation of proven learning theories that are applicable to the adult learning environment. Some theories that are relevant to corporate e-learning include:

Andragogy

Andragogy is the equivalent to pedagogy but tailored to the needs of adults. The theory was developed in the 1970s by Knowles.[29] Andragogy focuses on process over content with the goal of the instructor to facilitate a transformative learning experience. Methods may include role play, case studies, or simulations that provide immersive context for the learning experience.

Communities of Practice

Lave and Wenger have developed a theory specific to Communities of Practice (CoP). A CoP is a group of individuals who connect either in person or electronically to learn together about a common body of knowledge (Newhouse, Vestal, 2001)[30] The CoP is based on situated learning and the community collaborates and constructs knowledge by sharing experiences, tools, and best practices which makes the CoP an excellent fit for the Corporate environment. E-Learning in CoPs is supported by technologies such as expert blogs, wikis, twitter, social networking sites such as Linked-In, and social bookmarking such as Del.icio.us [1]


Problem Based Learning

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) involves having learners focus on a problem that may not have an obvious solution and requires that the learner leverage from prior knowledge and undergo an exploration to solve the problem. The PBL approach is a good fit to technologies such as MUVEs and serious games which can encapsulate one or more ill-defined problems.



References

  1. ↑ Han, H., Dick, G., Case, T., & Van Slyke, C. (2009). Key capabilities, components, and evolutionary trends in corporate e-learning systems. Chapter 27 in Holim Song & Terry Kidd (Eds), Handbook of research on human performance and instructional technology, pp. 446 – 469.
  2. ↑ Macpherson, A., Elliot, M., Harris, I., & Homan, G. (2004). E-learning: reflections and evaluation of corporate programmes. Human Resource Development International, 7(3), 295–313
  3. ↑ Newton, R., & Doonga, N. (2007). Corporate e-learning: Justification for implementation and evaluation of benefits. A study examining the views of training managers and training providers. Education Information, 25, 111–130.
  4. ↑ US eLearning market reaches $16.7 billion in 2009. (2009). Reuters Business Wire. Retrieved online March 4 from: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS197691+21-Oct-2009+BW20091021.
  5. ↑ Tai, Luther. (2005). Corporate E-Learning: How e-learning is created in three large corporations. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved on-line Feb. 18 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=02-22-2016&FMT=7&DID=888842691&RQT=309&attempt=1&cfc=1
  6. ↑ Berry, K. & Moore, D. (2008). IBM virtual education center. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (pp. 602-606). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved online March 5 from http://www.editlib.org/p/29668.
  7. ↑ Luor, T., Hu, C., & Lu, H. (2009). ‘Mind the gap’: An empirical study of the gap between intention and actual usage of corporate e-learning programmes in the financial industry. British Journal of Educational Technology 40(4), 713–732.
  8. ↑ Macpherson, A., Elliot, M., Harris, I., & Homan, G. (2004). E-learning: reflections and evaluation of corporate programmes. Human Resource Development International, 7(3), 295–313.
  9. ↑ Lamoureux, K. (2010). Harvard Business Publishing: Collaborative Learning Drives the Next Evolution of a Trusted Name. Research Bulletin, 2010. Bersin & Associates. Retrieved online Feb. 18, 2011 from http://ww3.harvardbusiness.org/corporate/assets/content/Bersin_Research_Bulletin_HMM.pdf
  10. ↑ Seely Brown, J., and Alder, R.P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause review. P.16-32. Retrieved February 12, 2011 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0811.pdf
  11. ↑ Robben, Joost & Yap, Robin (2010). A model for leveraging social learning technologies in corporate environments. Proceedings of Network Learning Conference 2010. Lancaster, UK, Retrieved October 8, 2010 from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Yap.pdf
  12. ↑ Bersin, J. (2007). Top trends in e-learning and corporate training. HR Magazine. Retrieved online March 1 from: http://www.hrmreport.com/article/Top-trends-in-e-learning-and-corporate-training/.
  13. ↑ The Herridge Group. (2002). Corporate eLearning Trends. Retrieved online March 4 from http://www.herridge.ca/pdfs/Corporate%20Elearning%20Trends.pdf
  14. ↑ The Herridge Group. (2002). Corporate eLearning Trends. Retrieved online March 4 from http://www.herridge.ca/pdfs/Corporate%20Elearning%20Trends.pdf
  15. ↑ Whelan, T.J. (2008). Social Presence in Multi-User Virtual Environments: A Review and Measurement Framework for Organizational Research. North Carolina State University. Retrieved online February 20, 2011 from http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tjwhelan/presence_in_OB_research_2008_%28LAS_prelim%29.pdf
  16. ↑ Whelan, T.J. (2008). Social Presence in Multi-User Virtual Environments: A Review and Measurement Framework for Organizational Research. North Carolina State University. Retrieved online February 20, 2011 from http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tjwhelan/presence_in_OB_research_2008_%28LAS_prelim%29.pdf
  17. ↑ Berry, K. & Moore, D. (2008). IBM virtual education center. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (pp. 602-606). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved online March 5 from http://www.editlib.org/p/29668
  18. ↑ Casserly, Meghan. 2010. Women And Gaming: Why videogames are the future of business—and women are getting on board. Formes.com. Retrieved online February 18, 2011 from http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/women-gaming-video-forbes-woman-time-online.html
  19. ↑ Robben, Joost & Yap, Robin (2010). A model for leveraging social learning technologies in corporate environments. Proceedings of Network Learning Conference 2010. Lancaster, UK, Retrieved October 8, 2010 from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Yap.pdf
  20. ↑ Luor, T., Hu, C., & Lu, H. (2009). ‘Mind the gap’: An empirical study of the gap between intention and actual usage of corporate e-learning programmes in the financial industry. British Journal of Educational Technology 40(4), 713–732.
  21. ↑ The Herridge Group. (2002). Corporate eLearning Trends. Retrieved online March 4 from http://www.herridge.ca/pdfs/Corporate%20Elearning%20Trends.pdf
  22. ↑ Holton, E.F., The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly; 7(1). Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global.
  23. ↑ Tyler-Smith, K. (n.d.). Early attrition among first time eLearners: A review of factors that contribute to drop-out, withdrawal and non-completion rates of adult learners undertaking eLearning programmes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Retrieved online March 1, 2010, from: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol2no2/tyler-smith.htm
  24. ↑ Tyler-Smith, K. (n.d.). Early attrition among first time eLearners: A review of factors that contribute to drop-out, withdrawal and non-completion rates of adult learners undertaking eLearning programmes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Retrieved online March 1, 2010, from: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol2no2/tyler-smith.htm
  25. ↑ Macpherson, A., Elliot, M., Harris, I., & Homan, G. (2004). E-learning: reflections and evaluation of corporate programmes. Human Resource Development International, 7(3), 295–313.
  26. ↑ Macpherson, A., Elliot, M., Harris, I., & Homan, G. (2004). E-learning: reflections and evaluation of corporate programmes. Human Resource Development International, 7(3), 295–313.
  27. ↑ Adams, J., & Morgan. G. (2007) “Second generation” e-learning: characteristics and design principles for supporting management soft skills development. International Journal of E-Learning 6(2), 157-185.
  28. ↑ Macpherson, A., Elliot, M., Harris, I., & Homan, G. (2004). E-learning: reflections and evaluation of corporate programmes. Human Resource Development International, 7(3), 295–313.
  29. ↑ Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED084368).
  30. ↑ Newhouse, H.C.B. and Vestal, W. (2001). Building and Sustaining Communities of Practice. In Next-Generation Knowledge Management: Enabling Business Processes. Houston, USA.

Related Links / Resources

  • Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C.B., Tesluk, P. E., and McPherson, S.O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Acadamy of Management Executive, 16, 67-69.

Images

Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=MET:Corporate_E-Learning&oldid=698475"