Elearning Failures

HOW TO AVOID
eLearning Failures
The Content Might be Great but the Course Fails — WHY?
BY VANTAGE PATH
Table Of Contents
A Defective Model of Dollar Return on Training................4
When Standards Are Distracting ..............................................7
The Lack of Emphasis on Outcomes.................................... 10
What Needs to Change? ............................................................ 14
Technology Alone Does Not Equate to
an eLearning Strategy................................................................. 17
Presentation..................................................................... 19
Programmed.................................................................... 21
Blended Learning to the Rescue............................................ 25
Reaching the true potential of elearning........................... 26
Elearning Platforms: Beware of the False Promise....... 32
Conclusion......................................................................................... 36
Sad but true, increasingly rich elearning platforms are asked to
deliver courses that fail to deliver the desired result, that result
being skill transference; the courses are far too often uninspiring
and outdated resulting in declining completion rates and
marginal performance gains. The trainee may gain a modicum of
knowledge; however, not knowing how to apply the knowledge
undermines the benefits.
How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 1

What are the primary causes of this phenomenon?
• Would-be instructional designers forget or ignore

how people learn, for they continue to use mostly
elearning models that simply do not engage. Without
true engagement the odds against course completion
escalate quickly.
• Employers and/or Subject Matter Experts are

frequently more interested in low cost and the
promise of high throughput of trainees, so true
measures of effectiveness are infrequently utilized.
• The tail wags the dog, meaning the elearning

platforms drive the instructional design, which may
not be relevant to the learning styles of trainees or to
the learning objectives for the course. This is routinely
true where the platform is integrated with a feature-
poor authoring tool.

• The perception that elearning is expensive to build
and maintain results in cutting corners, poor quality of
content and abandoned elearning projects.
• The technology is perceived as complicated and

difficult to maintain.
Why does this problem still exist when so many well-informed

people have sat through a course they know to be a loser? Is
it habit or is it that trainees simply have low expectations and
therefore don’t complain? After all, once we have sat through
even a couple of boring courses we no longer expect the next
course to be either stimulating or engaging, so we don’t complain
too much when we meet those boring-course expectations.

A Defective Model of
Dollar Return on Training
At a time when higher academia has become increasingly
aware that the ordinary classroom lecture is not necessarily
a particularly effective way of instructing, why is it that many
people responsible for elearning try to replicate the classroom
experience as much as possible?
A few years ago, only a minuscule percentage of corporate

training was technology-based, but in the past ten years
that growth in online training has been nothing short of
phenomenal. What has been lacking are adequate systems of
learner management and performance measurement.
Remembering the old business adage that “what gets measured

gets done”, we know that some rather pathetic elearning courses
are still being authored simply because their perceived success or
failure is based on little more than gut feel.

It has become very easy to conclude that there is relatively less
emphasis on outcomes measurement in employee training than
in higher education, where it can be severe; indeed the corporate
world experience still suggests that most businesses give more
weight to subjective results than to efforts to rigorously measure
the only results that really matter, performance improvement and
a return on investment.
Where there is at least a modicum of effort, it still seems to

be pointed toward measuring cost only, especially where the
training department can claim significant cost savings. The
press is full of articles quoting managers boldly speaking of how
many hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, they save
or expect to save with elearning, generally through less travel,
fewer hours employees would spend away from their normal
tasks, and lower personnel costs.

Until recently, ROI seldom came up in discussions of training
budgets, basically because the knowledge level of the employees
was regarded as an intangible asset which was not delineated
on the balance sheet. That mindset is still rampant but the
investment (sans maintenance), in both hardware and software,
necessary to deploy elearning should be a line item asset on
the balance sheet, not the P&L; so ROI has become a tool
of justification for training departments. Especially in tough
economic times, short sighted management may actually give
bonuses to trainers that come in under budget, even if relatively
new industry data suggests that those organizations will have to
spend more in the future because they built quick-easy-cheap
courses in the past.
Exp ensive
False Steps Can Be Very

When Standards Are
Distracting
In addition to the pursuit of cost savings, there is another aspect
that has received considerable interest in elearning circles—the
development of standards such as SCORM (Shareable Courseware
Object Reference Model) and IMS (Instructional Management
System). These are not standards that deal with learning
outcomes but rather deal with coding, tagging, and indexing
Learning Objects to facilitate reuse of digital training assets.
The drive to adopt standards is clear: SCORM compliance can

help learning technology become cross-platform flexible,
stable, recyclable, and accessible. Such standards are clearly
not objectionable, but there is not anything about them that
focuses awareness on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the
Learning Objects. Indeed, the term Learning Objects itself should
cause some apprehension. An LO (Learning Object) can be
defined as a “discrete unit that can stand alone or be dynamically
assembled to deliver just enough and/or just-in-time training.”

Learning Objects can also allow learners to choose the
training that most closely reflects their favored learning
style (auditory, visual, kinesthetic, etc.). A Learning Object
is then a thing that has physical properties (type, number
of megabytes) that can be measured; it can be tagged and
indexed for future use. No one knows, however, whether
that LO has ever resulted in anyone learning anything
or subsequently demonstrating any competency.
COURSE

We know that learning doesn’t happen in discrete bits or bytes.
It’s been proven that most human beings have to cross a fine line
between ignorance and insight numerous times before most of us
truly assimilate the intended knowledge.
Think of it as follows, interest precedes understanding

promotes internalization. The “understand” step is frequently
the longest. We understand, then we lose that understanding,
then possibly get it again, then discover we don’t have it in the
proper context, then the light bulb comes on again, then it dims
again and, ultimately after many efforts to grasp the concept, we
have it. Learning can appear a tad ragged, and generally does not
come as neatly packaged, easily digested little object morsels, no
matter how rigorously we codify them.
re c e d e s U n d e rs ta n d in g
Interest P
Promotes Internalization

The Lack of Emphasis on
Outcomes
When elearning “experts” try to measure the effectiveness of
individual content elements, their quest is frequently misdirected;
it diverts deliberation from the more important issue of
measuring course effectiveness. For instance that quest does
not routinely beg the question of — under what conditions does
elearning work? Leave these questions to the IT Department alone
to consider and watch the avoidance of anything that involves
audio, video, and other features with bandwidth or security
issues.
Its first step, all too often, is to measure the megabytes in

a Learning Object; IT can then approximate the additional
capacity needed to add in order to train salespeople how to sell
the company’s widgets. When IT issues are prioritized over
“outcomes” the results are all too often well short of the skill
improvement target set by the training department.

The simple fact is that standards such as SCORM, while very
important, really have little to do with the measurement of
training outcomes. So enough about measuring content; let’s
focus on measuring results!
Without a disciplined emphasis on the
measurement of skill improvement
results there is minimal motivation
to value anything but high trainee
throughput and/or low course cost.
This remains true even in the face of data that shows that failure-
to-complete rates for elearning courses are much higher (70
percent) than for traditional classroom instruction in four-year
colleges (about 15 percent). While three-fourths of corporations
use course completion rates to measure effectiveness, many
providers and training company executives minimize completion
rates as a noteworthy measure of accomplishment. Or some of
them make completion so easy as to render impossible the true
mission of skill transfer. How silly is that?

At the end of the day the key question is - Does the online
training work? If 20 trainees attend a session, does skill
transference occur? If yes, for how many? If the course is coherent
and logical, there’s the right content and the right amount of
content, the invitees are qualified and there’s a payoff at course
completion, many of them will likely learn as well as in the
classroom—but that may be a spurious hurdle. After all, 70% as a
measurement of course success is not necessarily something to
crow about..

Today elearning has become mainstream and its acceptance rate
continues to accelerate at an enviable pace. The budget savings
are too great to ignore, regardless of the scarcity of measurable
results. Moreover, elearning is now available to people in
relatively isolated locations, offering an assortment of training
and/or academic courses they could not otherwise access.
So we are not talking about the survival of elearning; it will rule

the training roost for the future. But we may be talking about
a degrading of quality if we are content to measure only the
cost savings, the compliance with standards and the number
of Learning Objects dispensed. Clearly, we should be under
no illusions about effectiveness if the failure-to-complete-
the-course rate remains anywhere near as high as it is today.

What Needs to Change?
First and foremost, it is all about the learning experience. If it is
not engaging, only the most highly driven people (by the carrot or
the stick) will probably complete the course.
How would the average trainee
describe the typical online learning
experience?
For that matter how would the course creator experience

the course?! Sleep-inducing is all too often the first words that
we think of, and it doesn’t seem to matter if the instructional
approach is watching a streaming video of the average instructor,
reading text, or watching the typical voice-supported PowerPoint
presentation.

Each of these has a role in the learning process but only in
conjunction with each other — not in isolation.
Does the course flow? Are we tested
and provided feedback along the way?
Does it reinforce our correct responses and help us understand

why incorrect responses were in fact incorrect? Of particular
interest is whether the author or designer has made any attempt
to adjust to people with dissimilar learning styles or even different
reasons for taking the course.

At the core of the problems are a few factors beyond the
reluctance to insist on quantifiable outcomes:
1. On hand technology is driving the instructional

approach.
2. Developers know nothing about how individuals learn.
3. The need to turn out courses at the lowest unit cost

leads to cutting corners and/or to repurposing content
that was weak to begin with.
When these issues are coupled with the removal of employee

interaction typical in classroom training, the results can truly
disappoint. Let’s scrutinize the first of these factors.

Technology Alone
Does Not Equate to an
eLearning Strategy
The desire to calculate the ROI for a training program should
lead to a resolve to define an elearning strategy, which should
be fundamental but is not always the approach taken. But most
of the strategic statements we’ve seen are determined by the
technology, not by corporate objectives. The infrastructure, i.e.
network bandwidth and telecommunications resources, is the
strategy in all too many of those statements. That seems to us to
be the cart before the horse.
Always start with the organization’s objectives, isolate

the competencies essential to attain those objectives, then
examine any constraints such as logistics, time, distance, trainee
experience, corporate culture, etc. Only then should you begin
to sketch the kind of learning experiences required to develop
those competencies. Only then do you reflect on the technology
and whether its capabilities and limitations will accommodate the
learning experiences necessary to achieve the desired results.

Part and parcel to an elearning strategy should also be the
question of what learning model will get the job done; is the task
about transferring knowledge or about transferring skill?
To examine this essential question we should dissect the

two dominant forms of Internet based learning systems:
Presentation and Programmed.
Programmed
Presentation

Presentation
Presentation models range from streaming audio and video

to PowerPoint programs that have been repurposed and
delivered over various web-based services. Presentations are the
established learning model, used for centuries. Frequently they
are referred to as the “information transmission” model or, more
skeptically, “the talking head” model. This model assumes that
most people can learn the subject matter through watching and/
or listening. At its worst it is simply a voice over a slide show. Most
corporate employees have seen their CEO use this method to
broadcast his message to everyone, and similarly to speak with
specific departments in discussion group mode.

At best, the speaker may be tremendous and the graphics, videos
and other visual aids contribute substantially to the listener’s
comprehension. Presentation models have been largely
one-way until relatively recently when live, interactive
videoconferencing has become available and clearly more
effective.
Frankly until the science of learning took quantum leap steps in

the past twenty years we have been operating rather delusionally,
thinking that we can take an image, an arrangement, an effective
model of something created in our minds out of extensive
experience and awareness, and by turning that model into a
sequence of words, transfer it whole into the brain of someone
else.
Maybe this works once in a hundred times, when the explanation

is abnormally good, and the listener is very experienced and
competent at turning verbal commentary into nonverbal certainty,
but this model is fraught with uncertainty; the most typical
result being that the viewer is mentally distracted while they are
“listening” to the webinar.

Programmed
The other dominant model is Programmed online learning or

elearning, although the definition of the term has been muddled
by lumping at least the two distinctively different models under
one term. For instance, note the struggle to define words such
as eteach, etrain, elearn, etell, etc. To make our point we could
continue to define terms not found in the everyday language of
an elearning expert but let’s simplify — if the web-based course
simply tells or shows the student how to do something then it
most likely fails to train them in how to actually do something and
should be called something like an “epresentation”, the results-
challenged first cousin of the talking head webinar.
On the other hand, If the course actually engages the student

with highly interactive activities which require the student to
actively participate during the delivery of the course then it
provides the framework for behavioral change; such a course
is instilling skill rather than simply transferring knowledge.

For instance, a course entitled “The Six Absolutes in Delivering
Quality Customer Service” can
1. tell the student what those six absolutes are or
2. not only tell the student what they are but engage that
student, via the keyboard, in activities that require the
student to demonstrate they know how to USE those
absolutes.
Reciting the six absolutes is not what management wants; they

want the employee to be able to use, correctly, those six
absolutes.
If it is worth doing,
it is worth measuring

Elearning is the most popular model for asynchronous
learning. The developer basically cuts the content into convenient
blocks of text, augments it by some audio-video and graphics, and
asks the trainees to work through the screens at their own speed.
There are numerous questions distributed within the lessons, and
immediate feedback is provided.
Content is delivered as a series of asynchronous testable or

verifiable learning objects, augmented through the presentation
of multimedia assets in interactive and simulative scenarios.
Some courses offer feedback or coaching for incorrect answers,

using the incorrect answer itself as an opportunity to teach and
reinforce. However most simply ask the trainee to take another
shot at the question. Much of the strategy is entirely consistent
with basic learning concepts, but the content is all too often
mostly text and is regularly criticized as boring and trivial. One
positive attribute of this model is that the training is often built
around quantifiable learning objectives, which were usually
measured in some kind of post-test. Again, if it is worth doing it
is worth measuring.

There are now more advanced instructional models that
represent the second wave of web-based elearning solutions.
These include contextual case studies, projects, or simulations;
when blended with at least a modicum of more traditional
training models there is exceptional potential for transferring skill,
truly embedding behavior change in the brain of the trainee. Even
delivered as stand alone courses, blending none of the traditional
instructor-student relationship, these efforts are a quantum leap
forward for elearning if for no other reason than this one — they
get completed while the non-engaging ones do not.
Today these advanced tools are not routinely employed, most

likely because of the perception of high development costs,
but the advanced tools are being recognized as the salvation of
elearning. Organizations are paying attention to the poor
completion rates of the first wave of elearning courses and
will not produce something that their own employees find is
a waste of money and time a second time.

Blended Learning to the
Rescue
There is also a hybrid training model, largely known as blended
learning, now in use in academia, government, association and
corporate training that blend elearning with classroom sessions
and even follow-on individual coaching sessions.
Our conclusion from first-hand experience is that such efforts

can be exceptionally beneficial, assuming the instructional
design of each segment has been carefully planned.
Furthermore, it appears there is no advantage to a hybrid model
if both elearning and classroom use the same boring lecture, aka
presentation, strategy. Too many heads nod too many times.

Reaching the true potential of elearning
A “standard” elearning model does not exist because the

wide range of possible training strategies and models is so
significantly dependent on the capabilities of the delivery
platform or Learning Management System (LMS). In fact, the
less elearning is genericized the more it seems to approach its
promise. Clearly Subject Matter Experts with a library of content
that has been redesigned for the Internet delivery favor the
engaging and interactive elearning instruction model, even if
they don’t think they can afford it; then again providers of simple
media/streaming video platforms that incorporate minimal if any
feedback favor the presentation or sage-on-a-stage model.
Those courses delivered are the very ones that trainees stop
taking well before finishing. These providers are suggesting
that the delivery system drive the learning model, when it fact it
should be the other way around.

Given the advances in elearning design, cloud based LMSs,
videoconferencing, and social media platforms that have
emerged, we are poised to have the Internet boost both learning
and training experiences by not simply extending traditional
models to broader audiences. There is the opportunity now to
create models that are decidedly appropriate for a wide variety of
learners and objectives. But again, let’s not put that cart before
the horse; let’s first examine what the world has come to know
about how adults learn.
LMS

There are more technologies than there are adult learning
styles so how do you choose?
There are broad conclusions and even broader opinions about

how adults learn. Best practice generalizations continue to
include:
• The student can work at his or her own pace.
• The student is on their own track, relatively

unencumbered by outside influences.
• Frequent practice is required.
• Reinforcement must come immediately.
• The outcome is where the focus should be.

Additional revelations were delineated by Howard Gardner in his
book Multiple Intelligences, which is now 30 years old. (The fact that
it remains relevant speaks to the fact that we humans really take a
long time to change, centuries if not millennia.) The book spurred
a lot of debate, rethinking and exploration of learning styles.
He postulated as follows:
• People have different

learning styles. Only three
in ten adults say they
learn best by listening;
another 30 percent say
they favor reading and
contemplation.
• Learning styles are

affected by the
subjectivity difficulty of
the material.
• Learning styles can be

affected by gender.

• In some areas learning styles can be affected by
ethnicity.
• If the topic is complex, comprehension does not

necessarily run in a direct line even if you break the
task down into elementary, individual components.
People need to ponder the material to truly
understand it.
• Learning is often a slow and meandering process

that happens through a chain of shaping exercises,
which are frequently not initiated by the instructor.
This is often known as tacit learning. Many coaching
structures recognize this, as do many classroom
courses where we expect skills to develop during the
semester without specific attention to those skills.
Because there are both social and cognitive elements to learning,

learning communities can be very helpful. Trainees and students
convert what they get from trainers and teachers into meaningful
know-how through trial and error, conversations, debates,
lunches, discussion groups and all manner of social interaction
online. The seemingly distracted training is likely to actually learn
something via “bull sessions”!

Elearning Platforms
Beware of the False Promise
In the past five years we have seen an avalanche of elearning

providers enter the market. Generally speaking they fall into
the categories of either authoring tools or LMSs but a few are
promising the benefits of their integrated solutions, even adding
ecommerce for firms selling their training. All too often we see the
recurring theme of “quick and easy” platforms that tout low price
and simple courses. They produce little more than a presentation
repurposed so that the provider can claim to offer elearning.
ti o n s w ra p p e d in e le a rn ing
Presenta
ns
lingo are still presentatio

They are capturing a segment of the market that believes
that if you call it elearning then it is elearning. It imparts
information electronically therefore by definition it is
elearning, right? WRONG. Presentations wrapped in
elearning lingo are still presentations. At almost any
price, including cheap, the buyer is overpaying unless
they are uninterested in performance improvement.

Quite prevalent are those elearning platforms that are out to
capture market share by making it sound so easy and so simple
that anyone can do it, and for next to no money. Quick and easy
is the order of their day and they prey on companies and
subject matter experts that are:
• under pressure from management to “just get

something done!”
• working with a shoestring budget,
• unaware of the failure-to-complete phenomena that

haunts boring courses,
• not interested in job security,
• naïve as to the best solutions available and the

economics of doing it right the first time

Do we need to use all the capabilities of modern day
elearning technology for every training assignment in the
program? No.
The platform can be as complex or as simple as needed, although

pace, repetition, critique/feedback, and remediation are almost
certainly required if you are to attain even an 80-80 benchmark
(80 percent of trainees score at least 80 percent on the final test).
The success of the course is less reliant upon the foundational

technology than on the expertise the developer uses to assemble
learning experiences suitable to the trainee and to the subject
matter. However, budgets and assumed ease of use are powerful
therefore it is likely that, unless management is uncommonly
sophisticated, those forces will continue to fight with empty
promises of results and end up driving many learning programs
to failure.

Conclusion
More powerful and engaging delivery platforms are available than
ever before, and they are available for far less money than just
a few years ago, but for many trainee’s the elearning experience
is hindered by technology that’s not much advanced from voice-
over PowerPoint presentations. Developers seem to be unaware
of how humans learn or, if they are, they ignore the correct
models of adult learning. Such providers may be happy with the
cost-effectiveness of their business models in the short term, as
organizations are delighted with the savings as reflected on the
P&L.
Without question those that have gone that route and

learned from their mistakes are now producing the best
elearning available. However those that are still enamored by
the promise of quick and easy, and that start their quest with the
technology rather than the desired outcomes, are sure to learn
the hard way that producing competencies is more important that
the perception of saved cost. Remember, employee competency
is an asset. Cost savings are simply cost savings.

Sadly technology continues to drive the instructional strategies,
clouding our purpose. Where is our insistence on creating
engaging training experiences that predictably contribute to the
enterprise’s objectives? Will the next wave of buyers accept the
fact that the cost of development of competency-driven elearning
courses is higher than the cost of delivering little more than a
presentation that bores trainees to distraction and ultimately
fails to be completed, thereby making such efforts horrendously
expensive as they end up being canned?
At the end of the day the effectiveness of those courses has

to be quantified as carefully as one quantifies cost savings.
Only then can the promise of elearning be fulfilled.

We hope you’ve enjoyed this e-book as much as
we’ve enjoyed creating it for you. If these tips for
growing your business are helpful, you may enjoy
viewing some course samples on our website at:
www.vantagepath.com
Let us show you how we can help you get the
results you want. Give us a call at 1-866-666-1907
for more information.

Elearning Failures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elearning Failures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HOW TO AVOID

A Defective Model of Dollar Return on Training................4

When Standards Are Distracting ..............................................7

The Lack of Emphasis on Outcomes.................................... 10

What Needs to Change? ............................................................ 14

Technology Alone Does Not Equate to

Blended Learning to the Rescue............................................ 25

Reaching the true potential of elearning........................... 26

Elearning Platforms: Beware of the False Promise....... 32

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 1

• Would-be instructional designers forget or ignore

• Employers and/or Subject Matter Experts are

• The tail wags the dog, meaning the elearning

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 2

• The technology is perceived as complicated and

Why does this problem still exist when so many well-informed

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 3

A few years ago, only a minuscule percentage of corporate

Remembering the old business adage that “what gets measured

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 4

Where there is at least a modicum of effort, it still seems to

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 5

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 6

The drive to adopt standards is clear: SCORM compliance can

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 7

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 8

Think of it as follows, interest precedes understanding

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 9

Its first step, all too often, is to measure the megabytes in

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 10

Without a disciplined emphasis on the

measurement of skill improvement

results there is minimal motivation

to value anything but high trainee

throughput and/or low course cost.

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 11

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 12

So we are not talking about the survival of elearning; it will rule

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 13

How would the average trainee

describe the typical online learning

For that matter how would the course creator experience

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 14

Does the course flow? Are we tested

and provided feedback along the way?

Does it reinforce our correct responses and help us understand

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 15

1. On hand technology is driving the instructional

2. Developers know nothing about how individuals learn.

3. The need to turn out courses at the lowest unit cost

When these issues are coupled with the removal of employee

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 16

Always start with the organization’s objectives, isolate

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 17

To examine this essential question we should dissect the

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 18

Presentation models range from streaming audio and video

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 19

Frankly until the science of learning took quantum leap steps in

Maybe this works once in a hundred times, when the explanation

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 20

The other dominant model is Programmed online learning or

On the other hand, If the course actually engages the student

How to Avoid eLearning Failures | 21