‘Ten out of ten or could do better?’ by David Freedman, Training Journal, August 2010

This article is one of the best I have seen in the area of virtual learning, mainly because it doesn’t focus on the technology but looks at the way that learning takes place. It is a welcome contrast to another article on the same topic in the same edition (‘Technology aiding better training’ by Eddie Kilkelly).

Perhaps the reason why I appreciate the article so much is because it is in harmony with MTP’s own views and experiences as we have moved some of our programmes to virtual delivery. We were initially sceptical about the extent to which we could bring the features of ‘face to face’ programmes into a virtual environment but soon became convinced that you can achieve most of the same benefits; this article goes even further by claiming that virtual learning even has other advantages, apart from avoiding travel and associated costs.

The author, David Freedman, is the Sales Director of Huthwaite International and his specialisation is sales training and negotiation, which one might think is an unlikely candidate to be in the vanguard of virtual training. He challenges this perception by stating that it is no longer valid to think of on-line learning being confined to the ‘push’ style of training, where knowledge is communicated one way to unseen audiences. This mindset has been changed by the potential of virtual classroom technology to allow high levels of interaction.

There are occasions when the author’s evangelism for virtual learning goes a little over the top. For instance he suggests that there are benefits from avoiding the social interactions of conventional courses and that carrying out role plays with audio only is better because it allows you to discount the distraction of body language. At MTP we would not go that far but we would agree that role plays that reproduce ‘meetings’ by conference call are not only highly effective but are in line with the way that business is moving.

Much else of what the author says is common sense and in line with our own experiences. He is very strong on a principle which is often difficult to communicate to those who are in the traditional e-learning mindset; that for interactive virtual programmes you need small numbers to allow effective interaction. We would normally go a little higher than the 8 to 12 range that is suggested but that may reflect the different topics we cover.

The other important principle that is not always recognised is that, for effective virtual training, the facilitator needs the same design and delivery skills as face to face, and more. Facilitators must not get sucked into being technology driven; they must always think of the participants and their learning environment. You do not have the benefit of seeing when you are losing participants’ engagement; you have to develop new skills to ensure that they are fully engaged and have not started checking emails or succumbing to other distractions.

Our views on maximum duration are also similar. We started by accepting the conventional wisdom that 60 to 90 minutes is the maximum for a single virtual module but we have found that, with the right design and interaction, four hour sessions are possible. Huthwaite suggest a structure of four hour blocks on successive mornings over a week, which is very similar to the design that has worked well for our Business Acumen programme for Hewlett Packard.

The other area in which we are in harmony is cost; the author argues that interactive virtual training should cost no less than face to face, apart from the savings on travel and accommodation. We would agree with one proviso; if two sessions can be organised on the same day with the same facilitator – for instance in different time zones – this can justify a lower cost than face to face, and even higher value.

The author suggests that a new mindset is necessary to change perceptions and make Learning & Development specialists see that interactive virtual training is much closer to face to face training than it is to conventional e-learning. The messages in this excellent article are just what is required to make the change.

Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2010-08-01-ten-out-of-ten-or-could-do-better