EL7006+Employee+Online+Training+Programs


 * ** EL7006-8 ** ||  ||
 * ** Facilitating Adult Learning Online ** || ** 5 Employee Online Training Programs ** ||
 * Well written description. **
 * Remember the focus of doctoral level scholarship is making the transition from practitioner to theorist. Rather than exclusively focusing on nuts and bolts of training or online learning, you should critically analyze the theoretical foundations with a mind to testing and verifying (debunking) theories and extending the body of knowledge. That process requires that you examine all assumptions, and especially the “taken for granted assumptions” which are ubiquitous but have not been subjected to rigorous empirical tests. You are preparing to work at the conceptual level, let the practitioners and the technicians focus on the application. The type of advice that will be expected from you as a doctoral level scholar relates to the reliability and validity of the theories used to support practice. Your degree will be preparation to make a contribution in the larger field of education, specifically, elearning and not exclusively as an employee of a particular company or focused on a particular approach to training. **
 * Who are the people who are providing the theoretical foundations for the training done at your company? What are their preferred theoretical frameworks? How have they tested and verified those theoretical assumptions? How are they monitoring the delivery of training to test the validity of their assumptions? **
 * Who are the people who are providing the theoretical foundations for the training done at your company? What are their preferred theoretical frameworks? How have they tested and verified those theoretical assumptions? How are they monitoring the delivery of training to test the validity of their assumptions? **

=Employee Online Training Programs = I have been asked to provide advice to ensure the success of the design and implementation of an employee online training program for my organization. This organization is a US-based Technological company with more than 380,000 customers, including all of the Fortune 100, implementations in at least 145 countries, and over 112,000 employees world-wide. In doing so, I will address the following points; (a) the current programs available for learning by employees and customers, (b) an introduction to the proposed training program, (c) support for the proposed training program and online training in general, and (d) a recommendation to expand the current initiative.

Current Employee and Customer Learning Programs
Informal learning consists of resources made available to users to answer their questions in response to a specific need or desire for information. It is not training since there is no structure or specified objectives for the learning. It is implemented online through informative and well-structured web sites, or resources made available on the web to provide documentation, or searchable tidbits for immediate user access ( Ambrose & Ogilvie, 2010; Rossett & Marshall, 2010 ). My company provides a technology network web site that provides downloads of trial software, full documentation regarding all of its products, articles and newsletters written by technical writers regarding various applications, languages and technologies, and a learning library that includes discussion forums for various users and experts to ask and respond to questions. Self-paced learning allows learners the ability to learn what, where, and when they may ( Desai, Hart, & Richards, 2008; Ruey, 2010 ). My company already has a self-paced set of classes available through a program called self-study CD-ROM’s (SSCD), and is considering an online web-based program (ToD) to further expand its arsenal of self-paced classes and topics. Of major consideration for the proposed training system is to determine the advisability of pursuing this new offering. The SSCD program offers an enormous selection of courses covering the company’s products and related IT topics using multimedia and the latest instructional design methods, with content presented, recorded, and edited by the company’s in-house instructors and technical staff. Leader-led learning means that each course will have an instructor to facilitate the presentation of material, the flow of the discussion, and answer questions in order to meet the learning objectives of each course ( Cercone, 2008 ). My company has hundreds of expert instructors with knowledge and experience in hundreds of learning topics on a variety of technological languages and applications. The majority of the leader-lead training performed currently is traditional in-classroom instruction that allows learners to learn in a training center. A pilot program has been conducted over the period of a year to determine whether it might be feasible to convert some or all of these traditional courses into virtual leader-led classes (LVC). Another major consideration of this paper is making a recommendation from the findings of the pilot study regarding this possibility.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Proposed Training Program
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Over the past year my company has been working on an e-learning initiative. During that period a number of success stories that demonstrate the viability of the overall implementation strategy have been noted. These successes have taken the form of several pilots run in various departments of the company. Based on the outcomes of the pilots I propose converting our almost total reliance on in-classroom training to a more graduated and specific approach. By determining the presentation needs for each class at an architectural level, we can tailor them and determine whether to frame the training in the classroom with an instructor, online with an instructor (LVC), as a form of self-paced learning (SSCD or ToD), or a combination of the three. In this way, we tailor the learning to the specific needs of the employee or customer ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Ke, 2010; Ke & Xie, 2009; Lapsley, Kulik, Moody, & Arbaugh, 2008 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Online Training Benefits
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">There are two main reasons for implementing more online training; greater worker performance and opportunity, and lower costs. E-learning delivery does not require the employee or customer to sit in a classroom for a predefined period of time. He or she can fit training into their time schedule, according to their opportunities for additional learning. Our pilot programs show e-learning to be more efficient in conveying pertinent information in less actual time than for in-classroom courses. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">In the pilot, 6% of employees preferred the SSCD, while 8% preferred the ToD, and the remainder of the students (86%) preferred the availability or required instructor-led training. The average time for completion of each offering was: SSCD, 3.56 days; ToD, 3.80 days; and LVC, 3.75 days. For the departments where these pilots were tested there were 214 total students that would have taken 5-day in-classroom courses; translating into 1,070 days employees would have been away from work. With the introduction of these courses employees were back to work faster, resulting in a savings of 269.12 work days. With an average salary for this department of $200 per worker, per day this constituted a savings of $53,824.00 for the year.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Table I <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">//Diverted Labor Costs due to Flexible Learning//
 * ~ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Method ||~ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Students / Time ||~ <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">Student Days Spent ||~ <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">Student Days Saved ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">SSCD || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">13 students * 3.56 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">46.28 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">18.72 ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">ToD || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">17 students * 3.80 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">64.60 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">20.40 ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">LVC || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">184 students * 3.75 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">690.00 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">230.00 ||
 * **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Total ** || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">214 students || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">800.88 || <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%; text-align: center;">269.12 ||

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Three facts constrain the number of employees who can be trained in important developments immediately in a traditional class; (a) there is a limit to the number of students who can actively participate, (b) instruction in the classroom must be done during work days, and (c) instructors can only be in one place at one time. With e-learning it is possible to surmount those constraints. For example, SSCD’s and ToD’s can be disseminated to appropriate personnel and utilized anytime, even over the weekend, and does not involve an instructor. Thus, more training can take place is a short period of time with minimal outlay after development ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Ambrose & Ogilvie, 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">The LVC solution does require more overhead and has more constraints. Due to the method of implementation, LVC are flexible quality alternatives to in-classroom training. LVC use a blended approach. For each LVC a live instructor is made available to students who: (a) answers questions; (b) provides necessary feedback, encouragement, or direction; and (c) presents constantly changing or incredibly complex material at predetermined times. Because of this blended approach, LVC allows more students to participate and receive optimal learning ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Ambrose & Ogilvie, 2010; Andrews & Haythornthwaite, 2007 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Development costs vary greatly depending on the length of the course, the complexity of the material, the availability of pre-existing material or learning objects, and the expertise of the developer. E-learning development is initially much higher than are traditional in-classroom offerings. For SSCD the initial cost of development runs almost three times higher than in-classroom training. For ToD the initial cost of development is more than three times higher. For LVC's the initial cost of development is about twice normal development costs. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Development costs of e-learning courses, however, are negligible since the foremost costs of training are delivery costs, travel costs (of both worker and instructor), and diverted labor costs ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Broadbent, 2002 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Through the continued implementation of e-learning for appropriate classes, the savings to the company will continue to increase, and savings from delivery, travel, and diverted labor costs will more than pay for the development of the e-learning initiative, with continued savings following year after year.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Continuing Implementation Plan
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">When my company began the the e-learning initiative we wanted to make sure to measure whether the programs were effective in translating disseminated knowledge into real performance increases at work. My company created an assessment system so (a) the employee is assessed on the critical knowledge that the class was designed to impart, (b) the employee’s manager observes work performance following training to assess improvement, and (c) where possible, we utilized performance monitoring software to determine if the employee performed specific parts of their job better and more efficiently. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">The assessments in the pilot helped us determine that all of the e-learning offerings consistently provide as good or better learning experiences as in-classroom courses in less time, and with less cost. In the pilot we also solicited feedback regarding improvements that could be incorporated into the offerings, and we used these suggestions, as appropriate, to further improve the effectiveness of our e-learning programs. I recommend the full implementation of the e-learning initiative due to several findings from the assessments. First, the constraints of a physical classroom do not apply to e-learning, providing better service to employees. Second, since the inception of the e-learning initiative we have worked with the IT department to ensure that employees have access to e-learning with excellent bandwidth at work, anytime, anywhere. Employees are located world-wide, and some do not have as good quality accessibility at home as they do at work. As we move forward we have plans to tailor our offerings so that employees will have a choice of augmented or regular courses so that if bandwidth is a problem they will still be able to get essential knowledge, even though it may not be as multimedia enriched ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Anderson, 2008; Fahy, 2008 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Assessments indicate pilot departments have universally expressed positive evaluations regarding availability and accessibility of information. I can therefore recommend that, in most cases, our people do not have to be in a classroom on a business day to learn and develop the necessary skills to improve or perform their jobs. Further, e-learning makes it possible to update or replace training, as well as respond to new demands for information and skills more quickly ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Broadbent, 2002 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">The pilots demonstrated development of e-learning offerings requires more resources, but these resources are diversified more than for the development of traditional classroom courses. This means that even though the cost and resources are greater in the preparation, the real timeline for development is about the same, and in many cases, less. Once a course is developed, it is a simple matter of deploying, and is available for use immediately. Changes or updates to e-learning courses are quicker to implement than in-classroom offerings. E-learning’s quicker delivery response positions training and delivery staff to be more nimble and responsive in addressing and delivering information and skills offerings that can be implemented in a more timely manner than has been the case in the past. =<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Conclusion = <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">I have shown that e-learning provides great benefits to the bottom line of my company. Among these benefits are lowers costs in the form of more productive workers days, faster delivery of material to a larger group of employees, and the economies of scale of e-learning – even paying for itself in a very short period. E-learning provides as good or better quality learning experience for employees. Employees in our pilot are more satisfied with the offerings initiated, and come away with skills that improve their work performance at all levels. Finally, the e-learning initiative has made training more nimble and responsive to current and future training needs. Because of these advantages to the company, I suggest that we continue to expand and establish the e-learning initiative because of the positive impact it makes on our culture, and our bottom line.


 * = References ||
 * * Ambrose, J., & Ogilvie, J. (2010). Multiple modes in corporate learning: Propelling business IQ with formal, informal and social learning. //Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14//(2), 9-18. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/Multiple_Modes_in_Corporate_Learning_Propelling_Business_IQ_with_Formal,_Informal_and_Social_Learning_0_0.pdf
 * Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), //The theory and practice of online learning// (pp. 45-74). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University.
 * Andrews, R., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2007). Introduction to e-learning research. In R. Andrews, & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.). //The SAGE handbook of e-learning research// (pp. 1-51). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
 * Broadbent, B. (2002). //ABCs of e-learning: Reaping the benefits and avoiding the pitfalls//. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
 * Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design. //Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal (AACE), 16//(2), 137-159. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/j/AACEJ
 * Desai, M. S., Hart, J., & Richards, T. C. (2008). E-learning: Paradigm shift in education. //Education, 129//(2), 327-334. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (EJ871567)
 * Fahy, P. J. (2008). Characteristics of interactive online learning media. In T. Anderson (Ed.), //The theory and practice of online learning// (pp. 167-199). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University.
 * Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. //Computers & Education, 55//, 808-820. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.013
 * Ke, F., & Xie, K. (2009). Toward deep learning for adult students in online courses. //Internet and Higher Education, 12//, 136-145. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.001
 * Lapsley, R., Kulik, B., Moody, R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Is identical really identical? An investigation of equivalency theory and online learning. //Journal of Educators Online, 5(1)//, 1-19. Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com/
 * Rossett, A., & Marshall, J. (2010). What corporate training professionals think about e-learning: Practitioners' views of the potential of e-learning in the workplace. //Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14//(2), 19-27. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/What_Corporate_Training_Professionals_Think_About_eLearning_Practitioners%E2%80%99_Views_on_%20the_%20Potential_of_eLearning_in_the_Workplace_0.pdf
 * Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online learning. //British Journal of Educational Technology, 41//(5), 706-720. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00965.x ||