Session P10 Evaluating Online Learning: Frameworks and Perspectives (Workshop: Sunday Sept 22nd, Online Learning 2002) Dr. Curtis J. Bonk President, CourseShare.com Associate Professor, Indiana University http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk, [email protected] Dr. Vanessa Paz Dennen Assistant Professor, San Diego State University [email protected] http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/vdennen Workshop Overview • Part I: The State of Online Learning • Part II. Evaluation Purposes, Approaches, and Frameworks • Part III. Applying Kirkpatrick’s 4 Levels • Part IV. ROI and Online Learning • Part V. Collecting Evaluation Data & Online Evaluation Tools Sevilla & Wells (July, 2001), e-learning We could be very productive by ignoring assessment altogether and assume competence if the learner simply gets through the course. Why Evaluate? • Cost-savings – Becoming less important reason to evaluate as more people recognize that the initial expense is balanced by long-term financial benefits • Performance improvement – A clear place to see impact of online learning • Competency advancement 16 Evaluation Methods 1. Formative Evaluation 2. Summative Evaluation 3. CIPP Model Evaluation 4. Objectives-Oriented Evaluation 5. Marshall & Shriver's 5 Levels of Evaluation 6. Bonk’s 8 Part Evaluation Plan (& the Ridiculous Model) 7. Kirkpatrick’s 4 Levels 8. Return on Investment (ROI): 9. K-Level 6 budget and stability of e-learning team. 10. K-Level 7 whether e-learning champion(s) are promoted 11. Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA) 12. Time to Competency 13. Time to Market 14. Return on Expectation 15. AEIOU: Accountability, Effectiveness, Impact, Organizational Context, U = Unintended Consequences 16. Consumer-Oriented Evaluation Part I. The State of Online Learning Survey of 201 Trainers, Instructors, Managers, Instructional Designers, CEOs, CLOs, etc. Survey Limitations • • • • • Sample pool—e-PostDirect The Web is changing rapidly Lengthy survey, low response rate No password or keycode Many backgrounds—hard to generalize • Does not address all issues (e.g., ROI calculations, how trained & supported, specific assessments) Figure 2. Size of Respondent Organizations Percent of Respondents 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 to 30 31-100 101 to 500 501 to 1,000 1,001 to 5,000 5,001 to 10,000 Number of Employees 10,001 to More than 100,000 100,001 Figure 12. Methods Used to Deliver Training in Organization Other Paper-Based Correspondence Videotape Multimedia Internet/Intranet Instructor-Led Classroom 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Why Interested in E-Learning? Mainly cost savings Reduced travel time Greater flexibility in delivery Timeliness of training Better allocation of resources, speed of delivery, convenience, course customization, lifelong learning options, personal growth, greater distrib of materials Figure 25. Percent of Respondent Organizations Conducting Formal Evaluations of Web-Based Learning Yes 41% No 59% A Few Assessment Comments Level 1 Comments. Reactions “We assess our courses based on participation levels and online surveys after course completion. All of our courses are asynchronous.” “I conduct a post course survey of course material, delivery methods and mode, and instructor effectiveness. I look for suggestions and modify each course based on the results of the survey.” “We use the Halo Survey process of asking them when the course is concluding.” Level 2 Comments: Learning “We use online testing and simulation frequently for testing student knowledge.” “Do multiple choice exams after each section of the course.” “We use online exams and use level 2 evaluation forms.” Level 3 Comment: Job Performance “I feel strongly there is a need to measure the success of any training in terms of the implementation of the new behaviors on the job. Having said that, I find there is very limited by our clients in spending the dollars required…” More Assessment Comments Multiple Level Evaluation “Using Level One Evaluations for each session followed by a summary evaluation. Thirty days post-training, conversations occur with learners’ managers to assess Level 2” (actually Level 3).” “We do Level 1 measurements to gauge student reactions to online training using an online evaluation form. We do Level 2 measurements to determine whether or not learning has occurred… “Currently, we are using online teaching and following up with manager assessments that the instructional material is being put to use on the job.” Who is Evaluating Online Learning? • 59% of respondents said they did not have a formal evaluation program • At Reaction level: 79% • At Learning level: 61% • At Behavior/Job Performance level: 47% • At Results or Return on Investment: 30% Percent of Respondents Figure 26. How Respondent Organizations Measure Success of Web-Based Learning 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Learner satisfaction Change in knowledge, skill, atttitude Job performance Kirkpatrick's Evaluation Level ROI Assessment Lacking or Too Early “We are just beginning to use Web-based technology for education of both associates and customers, and do not have the metric to measure our success. However, we are putting together a focus group to determine what to measure (and) how.” “We have no online evaluation for students at this time.” “We lack useful tools in this area.” Limitations with Current System “I feel strongly there is a need to measure the success of any training in terms of the implementation of the new behaviors on the job. Having said that, I find there is very limited by our clients in spending the dollars required…” “We are looking for better ways to track learner progress, learner satisfaction, and retention of material.” “Have had fairly poor ratings on reliability, customer support, and interactivity…” Pause…How and What Do You Evaluate…? Readiness Checklist 1. ___ Is your organization undergoing significant change, in part related to elearning? 2. ___ Is there pressure from senior management to measure the results of elearning? 3. ___ Has your company experienced one or more training/learning disasters in the past? 4. ___ Is the image of the training/learning function lower than you want? Part II Evaluation Purposes, Approaches and Frameworks What is Evaluation??? “Simply put, an evaluation is concerned with judging the worth of a program and is essentially conducted to aid in the making of decisions by stakeholders.” (e.g., does it work as effectively as the standard instructional approach). (Champagne & Wisher, in press) What is assessment? • Assessment refers to…efforts to obtain info about how and what students are learning in order to improve…teaching efforts and/or to demo to others the degree to which students have accomplished the learning goals for a course.” (Millar, 2001, p. 11). • It is a way of using info obtained through various types of measurement to determine a learner’s performance or skill on some task or situation (Rosenkrans, 2000). Who are you evaluating for? The level of evaluation will depend on articulation of the stakeholders. Stakeholders of evaluation in corporate settings may range from…??? Evaluation Purposes • Determine learner progress – What did they learn? • Document learning impact – How well do learners use what they learned? – How much do learners use what they learn? Evaluation Purposes • Efficiency – Was online learning more effective than another medium? – Was online learning more cost-effective than another medium/what was the return on investment (ROI)? • Improvement – How do we do this better? Evaluation Purposes “An evaluation plan can evaluate the delivery of e-learning, identify ways to improve the online delivery of it, and justify the investment in the online training package, program, or initiative.” (Champagne & Wisher, in press) Evaluation Plans Does your company have a training evaluation plan? Steps to Developing an OL Evaluation Program • Select a purpose and framework • Develop benchmarks • Develop online survey instruments – For learner reactions – For learner post-training performance – For manager post-training reactions • Develop data analysis and management plan 1. Formative Evaluation • Formative evaluations focus on improving the online learning experience. • A formative focus will try to find out what worked or did not work. • Formative evaluation is particularly useful for examining instructional design and instructor performance. Formative Questions • -How can we improve our OL program? • -How can we make our OL program more efficient? • -More effective? • -More accessible? 2. Summative Evaluation • Summative evaluations focus on the overall success of the OL experience (should it be continued?). • A summative focus will look at whether or not objectives are met, the training is cost-effective, etc. Course Completion • Jeanne Meister, Corporate University Xchange, found a 70 percent drop out rate compared to classroom rates of 15%. • Perhaps need new metrics. Need to see if they can test out. • “Almost any measure would be better than course completion, which is not a predictor of anything.” Tom Kelly, Cisco, March 2002, eLearning. What Can OL Evaluation Measure? • Categories of Evaluation Info (Woodley and Kirkwood, 1986) • • • • • • Measures of activity Measures of efficiency Measures of outcomes Measures of program aims Measures of policy Measures of organizations Typical Evaluation Frameworks for OL • Commonly used frameworks include: – – – – CIPP Model Objectives-oriented Marshall & Shriver’s 5 levels Kirkpatrick’s 4 levels • Plus a 5th level – AEIOU – Consumer-oriented 3. CIPP Model Evaluation • CIPP is a management-oriented model – – – – C = context I = input P = process P = product • Examines the OL within its larger system/context CIPP & OL: Context • Context: Addresses the environment in which OL takes place. • How does the real environment compare to the ideal? • Uncovers systemic problems that may dampen OL success. – Technology breakdowns – Inadequate computer systems CIPP & OL: Input • Input: Examines what resources are put into OL. • Is the content right? • Have we used the right combination of media? • Uncovers instructional design issues. CIPP & OL: Process • Process: Examines how well the implementation works. • Did the course run smoothly? • Were there technology problems? • Was the facilitation and participation as planned? • Uncovers implementation issues. CIPP & OL: Product • Product: Addresses outcomes of the learning. • Did the learners learn? How do you know? • Does the online training have an effect on workflow or productivity? • Uncovers systemic problems. 4. Objectives-Oriented Evaluation • Examines OL training objectives as compared to training results • Helps determine if objectives are being met • Helps determine if objectives, as formally stated, are appropriate • Objectives can be used as a comparative benchmark between online and other training methods Evaluating Objectives & OL • An objectives-oriented approach can examine two levels of objectives: – Instructional objectives for learners (did the learners learn?) – Systemic objectives for training (did the training solve the problem?) Objectives & OL • Requires: – A clear sense of what the objectives are (always a good idea anyway) – The ability to measure whether or not objectives are met • Some objectives may be implicit and hard to state • Some objectives are not easy to measure 5. Marshall & Shriver's Five Levels of Evaluation • Performance-based evaluation framework • Each level examines a different area’s of performance • Requires demonstration of learning Marshall & Shriver's 5 Levels • Level I: Self (instructor) • Level II: Course Materials • Level II: Course Curriculum • Level IV: Course Modules • Level V: Learning Transfer 6. Bonk’s Evaluation Plan… Considerations in Evaluation Plan 8. University or Organization 7. Program 6. Course 5. Tech Tool 1. Student 2. Instructor 3. Training 4. Task What to Evaluate? 1.Learner—attitudes, learning, use, performance. 2.Instructor—popularity, course enrollments. 3.Training—internal and external components. 4.Task--relevance, interactivity, collaborative. 5.Tool--usable, learner-centered, friendly, supportive. 6.Course—interactivity, participation, completion. 7.Program—growth, long-range plans. 8.Organization—cost-benefit, policies, vision. RIDIC5-ULO3US Model of Technology Use 4. Tasks (RIDIC): – – – – – Relevance Individualization Depth of Discussion Interactivity Collaboration-Control-ChoiceConstructivistic-Community RIDIC5-ULO3US Model of Technology Use 5. Tech Tools (ULOUS): – Utility/Usable – Learner-Centeredness – Opportunities with Outsiders Online – Ultra Friendly – Supportive 7. Kirkpatrick’s 4 Levels • A common training framework. • Examines training on 4 levels. • Not all 4 levels have to be included in a given evaluation. The 4 Levels • Reaction • Learning • Behavior • Results 8. Return on Investment (ROI): A 5th Level • Return on Investment is a 5th level • It is related to results, but is more clearly stated as a financial calculation • How to calculate ROI is the big issue here Is ROI the answer? • Elise Olding of CLK Strategies suggests that we shift from looking at ROI to looking at time to competency. • ROI may be easier to calculate since concrete dollars are involved, but time to competency may be more meaningful in terms of actual impact. Example: Call Center Training • Traditional call center training can take 3 months to complete • Call center employees typically quit within one year • When OL was implemented, the time to train (time to competency) was reduced • Benchmarks for success: time per call; number of transfers Example: Circuit City • Circuit City provided online product/sales training • What is more useful to know: – The overall ROI or break-even point? – How much employees liked the training? – How many employees completed the training? – That employees who completed 80% of the training saw an average increase of 10% in sales? Matching Evaluation Levels with Objectives Pretest Instructions: For each statement below, indicate the level of evaluation at which the objective is aimed. 1. ___ Show a 15 percent decrease in errors made on tax returns by staff accountants participating in the e-learning certificate program. 2. ___ Increase use of conflict resolution skills, when warranted, by 80 percent of employees who had completed the first eight modules of the online training. (see handout for more) 9. A 6th Level? Clark Aldrich (2002) • Adding Level 6 which relates to the budget and stability of the e-learning team. – Just how respected and successful is the e-learning team. – Have they won approval from senior management for their initiatives. – Aldrich, C. (2002). Measuring success: In a post-Maslow/Kirkpatrick world, which metrics matter? Online Learning, 6(2), 30 & 32. th 7 10. And Even a Level? Clark Aldrich (2002) • At Level 7 whether the e-learning sponsor(s) or champion(s) are promoted in the organization. • While both of these additional levels address the people involved in the e-learning initiative or plan, such recognitions will likely hinge on the results of evaluation of the other five levels. 11. ROI Alternative: Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA) • ROI may be ill-advised since not all impacts hit bottom line, and those that do take time. • Shifts the attention from more long-term results and quantifying impacts with numeric values, such as: – increased revenue streams, – increased employee retention, or – reduction in calls to a support center. • Reddy, A. (2002, January). E-learning ROI calculations: Is a cost/benefit analysis a better approach? e-learning. 3(1), 30-32. Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA) • To both qualitative and quantitative measures: – – – – – – – – job satisfaction ratings, new uses of technology, reduction in processing errors, quicker reactions to customer requests, reduction in customer call rerouting, increased customer satisfaction, enhanced employee perceptions of training, global post-test availability. • Reddy, A. (2002, January). E-learning ROI calculations: Is a cost/benefit analysis a better approach? e-learning. 3(1), 30-32. Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA) • In effect, CBA asks how does the sum of the benefits compare to the sum of the costs. • Yet, it often leads to or supports ROI and other more quantitatively-oriented calculations. • Reddy, A. (2002, January). E-learning ROI calculations: Is a cost/benefit analysis a better approach? e-learning. 3(1), 30-32. Other ROI Alternatives 12. Time to competency (need benchmarks) – online databases of frequently asked questions can help employees in call centers learn skills more quickly and without requiring temporary leaves from their position for such training 13. Time to market – might be measured by how e-learning speeds up the training of sales and technical support personnel, thereby expediting the delivery of a software product to the market Raths, D. (2001, May). Measure of success. Online Learning, 5(5), 2022, & 24. Still Other ROI Alternatives 14. Return on Expectation 1. Asks employees a series of questions related to how training met expectations of their job performance. 2. When questioning is complete, they place a $ figure on that. 3. Correlate or compare such reaction data with business results or supplement Level 1 data to include more pertinent info about the applicability of learning to employee present job situation. – Raths, D. (2001, May). Measure of success. Online Learning, 5(5), 20-22, & 24. 15. AEIOU • Provides a framework for looking at different aspects of an online learning program • Fortune & Keith, 1992; Sweeney, 1995; Sorensen, 1996 A = Accountability • Did the training do what it set out to do? • Data can be collected through – Administrative records – Counts of training programs (# of attendees, # of offerings) – Interviews or surveys of training staff E = Effectiveness • Is everyone satisfied? – Learners – Instructors – Managers • Were the learning objectives met? I = Impact • Did the training make a difference? • Like Kirkpatrick’s level 4 (Results) O = Organizational Context • Did the organization’s structures and policies support or hinder the training? • Does the training meet the organization’s needs? • OC evaluation can help find when there is a mismatch between the training design and the organization • Important when using third-party training or content U = Unintended Consequences • Unintended consequences are often overlooked in training evaluation • May give you an opportunity to brag about something wonderful that happened • Typically discovered via qualitative data (anecdotes, interviews, open-ended survey responses) 16. Consumer-Oriented Evaluation • Uses a consumer point-of-view – Can be a part of vendor selection process – Can be a learner-satisfaction issue • Relies on benchmarks for comparison of different products or different learning media See the vendors! Part III: Applying Kirkpatrick’s 4 Levels to Online Learning Evaluation & Evaluation Design Why Use the 4 Levels? • They are familiar and understood • Highly referenced in the training literature • Can be used with 2 delivery media for comparative results Conducting 4-Level Evaluation • You need not use every level – Choose the level that is most appropriate to your need and budget • Higher levels will be more costly and difficult to evaluate • Higher levels will yield more Kirkpatrick Level 1: Reaction • Typically involves “Smile sheets” or end-of-training evaluation forms. • Easy to collect, but not always very useful. • Reaction-level data on online courses has been found to correlate with ability to apply learning to the job. • Survey ideally should be Web-based, keeping the medium the same as the course. Kirkpatrick Level I: Reaction • Types of questions: – Enjoyable? – Easy to use? – How was the instructor? – How was the technology? – Was it fast or slow enough? Kirkpatrick Level 2: Learning • Typically involves testing learners immediately following the training • Not difficult to do, but online testing has its own challenges – Did the learner take the test on his/her own? Kirkpatrick Level 2: Learning • Higher-order thinking skills (problem solving, analysis, synthesis) • Basic skills (articulate ideas in writing) • Company perspectives and values (teamwork, commitment to quality, etc.) • Personal development Kirkpatrick Level 2: Learning • Might include: – Essay tests. – Problem solving exercises. – Interviews. – Written or verbal tests to assess cognitive skills. Shepard, C. (1999b, July). Evaluating online learning. TACTIX from Fastrak Consulting. Retrieved February 10, 2002, from: http://fastrakconsulting.co.uk/tactix/Features/evaluate/eval01.htm. Kirkpatrick Level 3: Behavior • More difficult to evaluate than Levels 1 & 2 • Looks at whether learners can apply what they learned (does the training change their behavior?) • Requires post-training follow-up to determine • Less common than levels 1 & 2 in practice Kirkpatrick Level 3: Behavior • Might include: – Direct observation by supervisors or coaches (Wisher, Curnow, & Drenth, 2001). – Questionnaires completed by peers, supervisors, and subordinates related to work performance. – On the job behaviors, automatically logged performances, or self-report data. Shepard, C. (1999b, July). Evaluating online learning. TACTIX from Fastrak Consulting. Retrieved February 10, 2002, from: http://fastrak-consulting.co.uk/tactix/Features/evaluate/eval01.htm. Kirkpatrick Level 4: Results • Often compared to return on investment (ROI) • In e-learning, it is believed that the increased cost of course development ultimately is offset by the lesser cost of training implementation • A new way of training may require a new way of measuring impact Kirkpatrick Level 4: Results • Might Include: – Labor savings (e.g., reduced duplication of effort or faster access to needed information). – Production increases (faster turnover of inventory, forms processed, accounts opened, etc.). – Direct cost savings (e.g., reduced cost per project, lowered overhead costs, reduction of bad debts, etc.). – Quality improvements (e.g., fewer accidents, less defects, etc.). Horton, W. (2001). Evaluating e-learning. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development. Of course, this assumes you have all the documents! Kirkpatrick + Evaluation Design • Kirkpatrick’s 4 Levels may be achieved via various evaluation designs • Different designs help answer different questions Pre/Post Control Groups • One group receives OL training and one does not • As variation try 3 groups – No training (control) – Traditional training – OL training • Recommended because it may help neutralize contextual factors • Relies on random assignment as much as possible Multiple Baselines • Can be used for a program that is rolling out • Each group serves as a control group for the previous group • Look for improvement in subsequent groups • Eliminates need for tight control of control group Time Series • Looks at benchmarks before and after training • Practical and cost-effective • Not considered as rigorous as other designs because it doesn’t control for contextual factors Single Group Pre/Post • Easy and inexpensive • Criticized for lack of rigor (absence of control) • Needs to be pushed into Kirkpatrick levels 3 and 4 to see if there has been impact Case Study • A rigorous design in academic practice, but often after-the-fact in corporate settings • Useful when no preliminary or baseline data have been collected Matching Evaluation Levels with Objectives Posttest Instructions: For each statement below, indicate the level of evaluation at which the objective is aimed. 1. Union Pacific Railroad reported an increase in bottom-line performance--on-time delivery of goods--of over 35%, which equated to millions of dollars in increased revenues and savings. 2. They also reported that learners showed a 40% increase in learning retention and improved attitudes about management and jobs. (see handout for more) Part IV: ROI and Online Learning The Importance of ROI • OL requires a great amount of $$ and other resources up front • It gives the promise of financial rewards later on • ROI is of great interest because of the investment and the wait period before the return Calculating ROI • Look at: – Hard cost savings – Hard revenue impact – Soft competitive benefits – Soft benefits to individuals See: Calculating the Return on Your eLearning Investment (2000) by Docent, Inc. Possible ROI Objectives • • • • • • Better Efficiencies Greater Profitability Increased Sales Fewer Injuries on the Job Less Time off Work Faster Time to Competency Factors Impacting ROI • # of employees • Travel costs • Opportunity costs (e.g., what does it cost to pull off of job) • Online course development costs • Infrastructure costs Hard Cost Savings • Travel • Facilities • Printed material costs (printing, distribution, storage) • Reduction of costs of business through increased efficiency • Instructor fees (sometimes) The Cost of E-learning • Brandon-hall.com estimates that an LMS system for 8,000 learners costs $550,000 • This price doesn’t include the cost of buying or developing content • Bottom line: getting started in elearning isn’t cheap Hard Revenue Impact • Consider – Opportunity cost of improperly or untrained personnel – Shorter time to productivity through shorter training times with OL – Increased time on job (no travel time) – Ease of delivering same training to partners and customers (for fee?) Soft Competitive Benefits • • • • Just-in-time capabilities Consistency in delivery Certification of knowledge transfer Ability to track users and gather data easily • Increase morale from simultaneous roll-out at different sites Individual Values • Less wasted time • Support available as needed • Motivation from being treated as an individual Talking about ROI • As a percentage – ROI=[(PaybackInvestment)/Investment]*100 • As a ratio – ROI=Return/Investment • As time to break even – Break even time=(Investment/Return)*Time Period Net Present Value • Need to discount the return to present dollars; a $100,000 project that yields $30,000/year for 5 years, would have a new present value of $29,364 at 8% interest (Horton, 2001, ASTD) Benefit-Cost Ratio • Project cost of $100,000 that yields $150,000 of benefits would have a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5 (Horton, 2001, ASTD) Time to Payback • If cost is $100,000 and ROI is $10,000/month, then the time to payback is 10 months (Horton, 2001, ASTD) Learners to Payback • Training costs $100,000 to develop and $100/person to offer. Assuming each person trained benefits the organization $300 (or $200 net); development costs are repaid by training 500 people (Horton, 2001, ASTD) Classroom Training vs. ROI (William Horton) 1. Per-course costs (course development costs) 2. Per-class costs (instructor/facilitator, travel, and facilities) 3. Per-learner costs (travel, salary, instructor/facilitator salary) What is ROI Good For? • Prioritizing Investment • Ensuring Adequate Financial Support for Online Learning Project • Comparing Vendors The Changing Face of ROI • “Return-on-investment isn’t what it used to be … The R is no longer the famous bottom line and the I is more likely a subscription fee than a one-time payment” (Cross, 2001) More Calculations • Total Admin Costs of Former Program - Total Admin Costs of OL Program =Projected Net Savings • Total Cost of Training/# of Students =Cost Per Student (CPS) • Total Benefits * 100/Total Program Cost =ROI% Pause: How are costs calculated in online programs? ROI Calculators 1. Mediapro (www.mediapro.com/roi) 2. Mentergy (www.mentergy.com/roi) 3. BNH Expert Software www.bnhexpertsoft.com (free trial version available) ROI Calculators Success Story #1 (Sitze, March 2002, Online Learning): EDS and GlobalEnglish Charge: Reduce money on English training Goal: 80% online in 3 months Result: 12% use in 12 months Prior Costs: $1,500-5,000/student New Cost: $150-300/user Notes: Email to participants was helpful in expanding use; rolling out other additional languages. Success Story #2 (Overby, Feb 2002, CIO): Dow Chemical and Offensive Email Charge: Train 40,000 employees across 70 countries; 6 hours of training on workplace respect and responsibility. Specific Results: 40,000 passed Savings: Saved $2.7 million ($162,000 on record keeping, $300,000 on classrooms and trainers, $1,000,000 on handouts, $1,200,000 in salary savings due to less training time). Success Story #3 (Overby, Feb 2002, CIO): Dow Chemical and Safety/Health Charge: Train 27,000 employees on environmental health and safety work processes. Results: Saved $6 million; safety incidents have declined while the number of Dow employees have grown. Success Story #4 (Overby, Feb 2002, CIO): Dow Chemical and e-learning system Charge: $1.3 million e-learning system Savings: $30 million in savings ($850,000 in manual record-keeping, $3.1 in training delivery costs, $5.2 in reduced classroom materials, $20.8 in salaries since Web required 40-60% less training time). Success Story #5 (Ziegler, e-learning, April 2002): British Telecom & sales training Costs: Train 17,000 sales professionals to sell Internet services using Internet simulation. Result: Customer service rep training reduced from 15 days to 1 day; Sales training reduced from 40 days to 9 days. Savings: Millions of dollars saved; sales conversion went up 102 percent; customer satisfaction up 16 points. And Blended Learning Results…??? Blended Learning Advantages 1. Course access at one’s convenience and flexible completion 2. Reduction in physical class time 3. Promotes independent learning 4. Multiple ways to accomplish course objectives 5. Increased opportunities for human interaction, communication, & contact among students 6. Less time commuting and parking 7. Introverts participate more Blended Learning Disadvantages 1. Procrastination, procrastination, procrastination 2. Students have trouble managing time 3. Problems with technology at the beginning (try too much) 4. Can be overwhelming or too novel 5. Poor integration or planning 6. Resistance to change 7. Good ideas but lack of time, money, & support Success Story #6. Infusing E-Learning (Elliott Masie, March 2002, e-learning Magazine) A manufacturing company transformed a week-long safety program into a three-part offering: 1. One day in classroom 2. Multiple online simulations and lessons. 3. One final day of discussions and exams. Must accomplish online work before phase 3— this raised success rate, transfer of skills, and lowered hours away from the job. Success Story #7. Ratheon, Build Own LMS (John Hartnett, Online Learning, Summer 2002) SAP Training Choice: Vendor ($390,000) or Build Internally ($136,000) or Cost of Instructor-led Training ($388,000). Note Saved $252,000 Five Training Components in 18 Weeks (within 6 weeks, 4,000 courses were taken by 1,400 students) 1. Role-based simulations 2. Audio walk-throughs 3. Online quick reference system 4. Live training support (special learning labs) 5. Online enrollment and tracking Success Story #8:IBM Special E-Learning Issue, April 2001 • 33,000 IBM managers have taken online courseware. • 5 times as much content at one-third the cost. • IBM reported $200 million in savings in one year. • Voided $80 million dollars in travel and housing expenses during 1999 be deploying online learning. IBM Training of 6,600 New FirstLine Managers (Basic Blue) • Phase I: 26 Weeks of Self-paced Online Learning – – – – – – – Cohorts of 24 managers Lotus LearningSpace Forum 2 hours/week; 5 units/week 18 mandatory and elective management topics Need minimum score on mandatory topics 14 real-life interactive simulations LearningSpace tutor guides behavior • Karen Mantyla (2001), ASTD. IBM Training of 6,600 New FirstLine Managers (Basic Blue) • Phase II: In-class 5 day learning lab – Experiential higher order learning – Bring real-life activities from job – Focus on self-knowledge and to understand their roles as leaders and members of IBM – Harvard Business cases, leadership competency surveys, managerial style questionnaires, brain dominance inventories – Coached by a learner-colleague (teaming impt!) – Less than 1 hour of the 5 days is lecture IBM Training of 6,600 New FirstLine Managers (Basic Blue) • Phase III: 25 Weeks of Online Learning – Similar to Phase I but more complex and focuses on application – Creates individual development plan and organizational action plan – Managers reviews and signs off on these plans IBM Training Results (Kirkpatrick Model) • Level 1 – High satisfaction and enthusiasm for blended – Coaching and climate rated highest • Level 2: – 96% displayed mastery in all 15 subject areas; 5 times as much content covered in this program compared to 5 days of live training – 150 Web page requests/learner IBM Training Results (Kirkpatrick Model) • Level 3 – Significant behavior change (in particular in coaching, styles, competencies, and climate) – Graduate had high self-efficacy and believed that they could make a difference • Level 4 – – – – Linkage bt leadership & customer satisfaction Leadership led to teamwork and satisfaction Managers reported improvement on job Improved morale and productivity reported IBM Training Results (Kirkpatrick Model) • Level 5 – Asked graduates to estimate the impact on their departments in dollars – $415,000 or ROI of 47 to 1. – Perceived real and lasting leadership increases Blended Learning Advantages for IBM 1. Greater consistency of language, knowledge, and corporate culture across the globe 2. Blended approach to training now replicated in other units 3. Market it’s e-learning design 4. Cross functional understanding & teamwork 5. No risk trials and simplicity helps Success Story #9. Three Phases of AC3-DL I. Asynchronous Phase: 240 hours of instruction or 1 year to complete; must score 70% or better on each gate exam II. Synchronous Phase: 60 hours of asynchronous and 120 hours of synchronous III. Residential Phase: 120 hours of training in 2 weeks at Fort Knox AC3-DL Course Tools • Asynchronous: – Learning Management System – E-mail • Synchronous: Virtual Tactical Operations Center (VTOC) (7 rooms; 15 people/extension) – – – – Avatar Audio conference by extension/room (voice over IP) Text Chat Windows—global and private Special tools for collaboration Success #10: Microsoft Excel Training (Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning) • Group One: 5 scenario-based exercises that offered live use of Excel on real-world tasks, online mentors, FAQs, relevant Web sites, NETg Excel Fundamentals Learning Objects. • Group Two: Same as Group One but without scenarios, but info in 5 scenarios were embedded in the learning objects. • Group Three: No training control. Success #10: Microsoft Excel Training (Thompson Learning Company Study; Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning) • Group One (the blended group): 30 percent increase in accuracy over Group Two (the elearning group) and were 41 percent faster • Group Two performed 159 more accurately than Group Three • Groups 1 and 2 relied on the online mentors for support – (Note: with these results, Lockhead Martin became a blended learning convert. Success #11: NCR: Blended Approaches (Thompson Learning Company Study; Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning) 1. Design of E-Learning (Various methods: Web articles; Synchronous points for team exercises) 2. Field Guide Binders (Web site guidance, live feedback on case studies, live “kick off” that promotes collaboration, hands-on role play) Over 71 percent of learners were responding to customers more effectively (Kirkpatrick Level 3) Success #12: Convergys: Blended (Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning) • Leadership Dev, Succession Planning, performance management, etc. • LMS from Knowledge Planet, 3 e-learning libraries, virtual classroom tools to 50 locations in North America & Europe • New managers received: Readings, job aids, meeting checklists, 5 off-the-shelf courses from SkillSoft, virtual classes via LearnLinc (new recruits talk to experienced managers), and a 4 day instructor-led seminar at HQ. Success #13: Sallie Mae/USA Group (Blended student loan provider program) (Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning) • LEAD (Leadership and Education Development); Groom internal staff to fill supervisory-level positions • 4 hours/week in class with internal and external instructors; learn trust, role of managers, etc. • First must complete 3 online management courses from SkillSoft and 6 online project management courses (includes panel presentation by IT Project Team to illustrate how projects are handled in the company’s culture) • Findings: increased temawork, camaraderie, shared understanding of concepts, respect for individual differences, social interaction, and reinforcement for class concepts. Success #14: Proctor and Gamble (Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning) • 1999 = 100,000 employees; 20,000 trained/year • LMS from Saba, live training from Centra • CD-based training using Authorware, CourseBuilder, & Dreamweaver • 2002 = 1,200 learning items; 34% Web, 54% CD • Global English saved $2.5 million per year • Off-the-shelf courses in time management and managing for success Proctor and Gamble (Jeff Barbian, Blended Works, Summer 2002, Online Learning) “Given our learning objectives and needs, should we select Web-based live training, versus classroom, versus video-based, versus CBT, or some blended solution?…It depends, on the resources you have, how far geographically you have to reach, or whether you can get your arm around them and pull them into a classroom.” Art DiMartile, Senior IT Manager, Proctor and Gamble The Worldwide Expansion of ELearning!!! • Success #15: Circuit City is training 50,000 employees from 600 stores using customized courses that are “short, fun, flexible, interactive and instantly applicable on the job.” • Success #16: The Army’s virtual university offered online college courses to more than 12,000 students located anywhere in the world in 2001 in the first year of a $42 million e-learning program. Dr. Sylvia Charp, Editor-in-Chief, T.H.E. Journal, March 2002. Success #17: Community Health Network of Indiana; www.ehealthindiana.com (July 15, 2002, American Hospital Association) • Named one of most wired hospitals and most improved hospital system nationwide in the use of technology in health care – – – – – – Virtual nurse recruitment Web site (live chats with recruiters) Video streams of nursing leaders Virtual tours of individual nursing units Online application and interactive job-posting databases Web portal for physicians First in nation to offer live Web cast of in vitro fertilization procedure – Real time clinical data repository Success #18: Cisco and DigitalThink Course (employees) – Sales training self-assessment – Ask via survey to estimate how much time training saved them on the job – Ask whether it improved performance – Select a percentage for each – ROI of 900%; for every $1 spent on training, Cisco sees a gain of 900% in productivity Success #18: Cisco and DigitalThink Course (Cisco vendors) – Most saw significant growth in productivity – 74% reported improvement in ability to sell or service clients – Customer satisfaction jumped 50% And What about Higher Ed??? Success #19 Higher Education: Student survey results after a hybrid course • Student feedback N=282 • 69% felt they could control the pace of their own learning • 77% felt they could organize their time better • 16% felt the time spent online would have been better spent in class • 61% felt there should be more courses like this – www.uwsa.edu.ttt/articles/garnham.htm At the End of the Day... • Are all training results quantifiable? • NO! Putting a price tag on some costs and benefits can be very difficult • NO! Some data may not have much meaning at face value – What if more courses are offered and annual student training hours drop simultaneously? Is this bad? Evaluation Cases (homework…) 1. General Electric Case 2. Financial Services Company 3. Circuit Board Manufacturing Plant Safety 4. Computer Company Sales Force 5. National HMO Call Center Part V: Collecting Evaluation Data & Online Evaluation Tools Collecting Evaluation Data • • • • • Learner Reaction Learner Achievement Learner Job Performance Manager Reaction Productivity Benchmarks Forms of Evaluation • • • • • • • Interviews and Focus Groups Self-Analysis Supervisor Ratings Surveys and Questionnaires ROI Document Analysis Data Mining (Changes in pre and posttraining; e.g., sales, productivity) How Collect Data? • Direct Observation in Work Setting – By supervisor, co-workers, subordinates, clients • Collect Data By Surveys, Interviews, Focus Groups – Supervisors, Co-workers, Subordinates, Clients • Self-Report by learners or teams • Email and Chat Learner Data • Online surveys are the most effective way to collect online learner reactions • Learner performance data can be collected via online tests – Pre and post-tests can be used to measure learning gains • Learner post-course performance data can be used for Level 3 evaluation – May look at on-the-job performance – May require data collection from managers Multiple Assessment Example: Naval Training Follow-Up Evaluation • A naval training unit uses an online survey/database system to track performance of recently trained physiologists • Learner’s self-report performance • Managers report on learner performance • Unit heads report on overall productivity Learning System Data • Many statistics are available, but which are useful? – – – – Number of course accesses Log-in times/days Time spent accessing course components Frequency of access for particular components – Quizzes completed and quiz scores – Learner contributions to discussion (if applicable) Computer Log Data Chen, G. D., Liu, C. C., Liu, B. J. (2000). Discovering decision knowledge from Web log portfolio for managing classroom processes by applying decision tree and data cute tech. Journal of Educ Computing Research, 23(3), 305-332. • In a corp training situation, computer log data can correlate online course completions with: – actual job performance improvements such as • fewer violations of safety regulations, • reduced product defects, • increased sales, and • timely call responses. Learner System Data • IF learners are being evaluated based on number and length of accesses, it is only fair that they be told • Much time can be wasted analyzing statistics that don’t tell much about the actual impact of the training • Bottom line: Easy data to collect, but not always useful for evaluation purposes – Still useful for management purposes Benchmark Data • Companies need to develop benchmarks for measuring performance improvement • Managers typically know the job areas that need performance improvement • Both pre-training and post-training data need to be collected and compared Online Survey Tools for Assessment Web-Based Survey Advantages • Faster collection of data • Standardized collection format • Computer controlled branching and skip sections • Easy to answer clicking • Wider distribution of respondents Sample Survey Tools • • Zoomerang (http://www.zoomerang.com) IOTA Solutions (http://www.iotasolutions.com) QuestionMark • SurveyShare (http://SurveyShare.com; from • Survey Solutions from Perseus • Infopoll (http://www.infopoll.com) • (http://www.questionmark.com/home.html) Courseshare.com) (http://www.perseusdevelopment.com/fromsurv.htm) Online Testing Tools (see: http://www.indiana.edu/~best/) Test Selection Criteria (Hezel, 1999; Perry & Colon, 2001) • • • • Easy to Configure Items and Test Handle Symbols, Timed Tests Scheduling of Feedback (immediate?) Flexible Scoring and Reporting – (first, last, average, by individual or group) • Easy to Pick Items for Randomizing • Randomize Answers Within a Question • Weighting of Answer Options Web Resource: http://www.indiana.edu/~best/ Tips on Authentification • • • • Check e-mail access against list Use password access Provide keycode, PIN, or ID # (Futuristic Other: Palm Print, fingerprint, voice recognition, iris scanning, facial scanning, handwriting recognition, picture ID) Ziegler, April 2002, e-Learning “…the key is not to measure every possible angle, but rather to focus on metrics that are pragmatic and relevant to both human and business performance at the same time.” E-Learning Evaluation Measures So which of the 16 methods would you use??? Something ridiculous??? Some Final Advice… Or Maybe Some Questions???