Ok there is the usual stuff, campaigns, meetings, roadshows...lots of different ways to advertise - email, web, F2F. So I am not totally void of ideas!!
I was wondering whether anyone had any unusual ideas - and in general ideas that they can say truly worked and made a difference to the uptake of this delivery method/model.
Thanks in advance.
Jackie Collins
Jackie Collins
11 Responses
Please Clarify
I’m afraid I have to ask, because I don’t understand.
Is ‘Synchronous e-learning’ the new expression for ‘Just in Time e-learning’, where information is delivered as it is needed and the recipient is able to use it and apply it, then forget about it?
This is, surely, demeaning to part of its own terminology. ‘Learning’, in my mind, is developing a thorough understanding of something and turning information into knowledge that can be applied.
It seems to me that there is a great deal of activity focussed on turning people into mouthpieces for technologically delivered data, whereas Stephen Hawking has it the right way around, using technology to speak for the mind of the individual.
Sorry I can’t help with your question and I apologise if this reads as something of a rant – but I dislike that outfit the emperor is wearing nowadays.
Nature of the training
I was wondering about the nature of the training? Is this something that is mandatory, or completely voluntary?
If the training is part of a wider programme, then hopefully any marketing would come from within the programme information and you would not need to think of any specific marketing campaigns as such.
My experience over the last nine years has unfortunately highlighted the fact that marketing any particular form of training method has only ever produced short term benefits. I now concentrate on making sure there is a real demand for the content to be delivered, within a more structured progamme of learning. Only then have staff put aside the time to take advantage of what was on offer.
In the States we tried to organise a series of voluntary one hour online seminars…the first was well attended, then interest dropped away as the novelty wore off and people re-focused on other more pressing business matters. We let the webinars fade away as further marketing activity was proving a poor return on investment.
Nature of the Training
Actually it’s a combination of voluntary and some compulsory, but at this stage mostly the former.
We know that everyone is excited about it, but can’t seem to get people to commit to the time they need to learn how to use it appropriately, and then get out of those old habits of organising a meeting/seminar/learning event in one location costing money and time.
I am interested in your comments, because they kind of back up my experiences at another company I worked for where we tried and tried, but could not (after the initial excitement), keep interest levels up.
A little depressing to say the least.
Please Clarify Response
I’m afraid I have to ask, because I don’t understand.
Is ‘Synchronous e-learning’ the new expression for ‘Just in Time e-learning’, where information is delivered as it is needed and the recipient is able to use it and apply it, then forget about it?
** I guess I should have been a little clearer (but then I don’t use the term JIT learning. I am specifically talking about the use of Centra as a tool for delivery of learning events, and communication events.
This is, surely, demeaning to part of its own terminology. ‘Learning’, in my mind, is developing a thorough understanding of something and turning information into knowledge that can be applied.
** You have made rather a huge assumption here. Your comment rather put’s a dent in the term eLearning in the first instance then surely? Sorry I am a little taken aback by your rant.
It seems to me that there is a great deal of activity focussed on turning people into mouthpieces for technologically delivered data, whereas Stephen Hawking has it the right way around, using technology to speak for the mind of the individual.
Sorry I can’t help with your question and I apologise if this
** Well I think I’d rather have had no answer than a rant. Maybe I shall avoid posing questions to the community in future if this is the type of response I can expect. This forum is surely for people to help each other and not “get at” each other.
Timeless Barriers to Learning
Yes, I can remember some of these barriers too.
Firstly, virtual seminars were so easy to cancel (i.e. you simply did not have to log on!), so even with a marketing push, a good number of registrations, sometimes we only got an attendance ratio of 25%!
Then there was the usability. I’m sure things have come along a lot since then, but the post-seminar evaluations were littered with complaints about the accessibility and reliability issues, in many cases completely outside of our control. People forgot they had to download a small program before they started so ended up joining the session late and in a panic so we unable to concentrate! Later, we started calling people a day or so before the event to make sure they had done the preliminaries (and help them with this) beforehand.
We always had great speakers and the event transcripts showed that most of those who registered actively took part and raised questions and nearly everyone felt they got something from the events…it was just so much hard work and took up too much trainer time each month.
If I was to do it again, it would be part of a programme of learning that was mandatory, sold internally as a whole by top management, with briefing material for line managers as well as their staff to make sure the importance of attending ALL the components of the training was recognised. I may even delay the online seminars until after attendance on a traditional workshop. Perhaps the desire to continue to work as a team will help to bring people back to the virtual classroom. People will already know the trainer and other delegates, so some of the “remoteness” of online seminars could be removed.
Rather than presenting new information in the online event (which people often say they could have got in a different format), I would deliver more knowledge-application type material or coaching activities.
This is a really interesting topic and one that I know will affect many organisations. Lots of best practice is starting to emerge…largely from painful first experiences! So hopefully, we can all put our heads together and come up with a blue print for success!
E-learning and opening doors
We have read the comments with interest. It seems to me that in this case the product ie the ‘synchronous e-learning’ content has been developed and now we need student ‘buy-in’? Correct me if I am wrong in any of these assumptions.
On the basis outlined above I would say we needed to look at the project from the view of those who will use it first, not as appears to be now in this case, the last thing looked at. If we view it now as needing marketing we probably have missed the mark in the original planning of this project. Staff inclusion and buy in occurs much earlier on in the project than completion.
However at the end you could look at some of the following;
What’s in this for me?, what are the benefits for me? are questions often raised in student’s mind where e-learning has to be done at their desk as well as all their exisiting duties. So I would start with how far have we got with release protocols for staff to do their learning and be logged in by managers if need be? Are there learning zones in the workplace so students need not view their in tray as they study? How much effort is being given within the organisation from the managers and directors to support the project and make it easy, attractive and beneficial to the workforce? Are those at the top the first users of the new way of learning or the last, and what message does that give? Also read some of Gilly Salmon’s work on the OU as she has done a lot to go to the heart of how people react in elearning and how they use the learning acquired.
Robert Edwards writes that people should learn to use the tools for their advantage, as in the Stephen Hawkings example, not make the people fit in the e-learning scheme at the end of the development cycle, I agree with that.
We in this example appear to be looking at a scheme where we sell a preformed idea ‘fait accomplis’ to the workforce and that will result in low take up and early drop out rates.
Manadatory training in a manadatory prescribed form is a retrospective step by any one’s standards. E-learning without looking at the end user’s needs and capabilities, and where all this meets with the business needs of the organisation is also a backward step.
I don’t think the questions here is a marketing one. It seems more to do with fundamental approaches to another version of workplace learning. Allocate some time for learning activities and watch the inclusion rate soar, reduce the time and see them go back to their desks and not look at learning.
Training By Design Global Ltd
Mandatory
I just want to comment on Susan’s response to the use of the term “mandatory”.
I have seen a number of good examples where training that is mandatory for legal or compliance reasons has been successfully supported by online seminars that can bring together larger, more widely spread audiences quickly and efficiently to receive their regular up-date training in the particular area.
I also use the term to reflect a core component of an integrated (blended learning) programme, e.g. you attend a classroom course, then instead of a classroom refresher workshop 3 months later, you touch base via an online event.
As with any training initiative, we have to look at what’s best on a case-by-base basis and not fall into the trap of a one-approach fits all. So some times, the models I’ve presented will work, other times, we need to think again.
Mandatory
Your words Tim,
Tim Drewitt , 19 November 2002 @ 12:26 AM
Timeless Barriers to Learning
If I was to do it again, it would be part of a programme of learning that was mandatory, sold internally as a whole by top management, with briefing material for line managers as well as their staff to make sure the importance of attending ALL the components of the training was recognised.
I think here the use of the word manadatory means that training would be compulsory. Now, it may well be that you meant also that you would only use content or subject matter that was mandatory learning within the organisation.
However we wrap it up though we are left with students who are brought to the trough of learning. I still say that is a backward step, we need fully informed consent and commitment first before we can launch programmes of training in any medium not just e-learning.
Training By Design Global Ltd
0870 241 3998
Very True!
Indeed Susan, I couldn’t agree with you more!
My comments were on the basis that real training needs had been identified and all the preparatory work had been completed and the training was only subsequently delivered to those that needed it.
In the work that I am doing, for instance, we look for where there is evidence of prior learning, so giving staff the option to opt out of components of the training programme, so that they only spend the time on the supplementary aspects of the training need. We encourage staff to analyse their own reasons for requiring the training and ensure that these reasons are taken into account by the trainer as they support the programme, both in the classroom and online.
Square Peg – Round Hole
I wonder if the confusion surrounding E-Learning/KM/Synchronous Learning and it’s implementation is that all these sorts of training applications are seen as a horizontal solidarity (Square Peg), but the physical make-up of an organization propogates vertical subordination. (Round Hole)
A sort of oxymoron.
When we look at any sort of corporate learning tool, we need to understand the breach between learning and use. (Learning has to have a direct impact/value to the business NOW – not in 3 months or 6 months)
I think maybe we should be aiming to be both horizontal and vertical at the same time.
Most people that join a company are given rules and regulations, a set of notions too.
Managers call these ‘standards’, and love to tell everyone that standards have fallen. But maybe they have just ‘changed’.
Maybe we are just different.
As with any system of ‘Online Learning’, user motivation is a key factor.
Most E-Learning and KM initiatives have shown averages of 30-35% up-take or completion.
Many users simple lose the motivation to complete courses or find a system too difficult to navigate.
An additional consideration is the content, users are simply not interested, due to the fact that the content had no direct (personal) relevance to their individual work situation.
We need to target the ‘user interest’ I have experienced some quite pleasant results in pursuing this method.
Initial results from pilot projects show a 90% up-take within a 3 month period.
This could of course be deemed as a ‘honeymoon period.’
What was most interesting, was that there was a consistent use and re-visit to the system by 75% of users upon full roll out.
This continues to be the case.
Market systems have grown – at the turn of the century only 10-15% of the worlds population were in the market segment, 40% in the 1970’s – almost 90% today.
Although the market has grown, the segments have narrowed. We are competing, not for market share, but a share of the markets attention (This include internal marketing) – in an instant society, unless we have a tribal link, or share passions with our customers, we are no more than a click away from oblivion. This will count for employee’s too.
We are in an age of over-capacity, supply exceeds demand, we must therefore target smaller markets with higher variety.
What makes employee’s WANT to participate, what is important to them and what are their emotional needs, desires on a daily basis?
To truly understand how to make ANY e-learning system appealing, you must first master the feat of holding two conflicting theories in your head, and still be able to function normally.
(IMHO)
Hope this makes sense?
IT Babble
Susan,
Your question seems to have generated quite a response, but I would like to add a practical example. We have found that for an individual to take up e-learning and for it to be effective it needs to be linked to a valued outcome, where as lots seem to be based on inputs. This appears to match the requirements of most large companies I work with. We therefore match and make e-learning packages available, linked to competency based outcomes that candidates can drive themselves, but which can be targeted by the employer. This enables us to measure the success of the outcome, and usually helps market the packages for us.