UK Training Industry Press Releases

It wasn't that long ago that blended learning was still spoken of as a mysterious next generation of training.  For some people outside the e-learning world this was the admission they had been waiting for - blended learning proved what some had said all along - e-learning doesn't work!

Others were more open-minded and welcomed the maturing of the e-learning market.  Steadily the vendors of e-learning who come from a simplistic "we can do anything" position were moderating their cost savings argument.  For some time, these technophiles argued that e-learning would replace rather than compliment the classroom.

Reality has set in.  There's now recognition - long overdue - that an approach which combines different interventions and training approaches might be the optimum solution for many training needs.  Over time, the adoption of a blended approach has become more widespread amongst organisations. Despite this move towards the mainstream there is still the whiff of mystery.  Training teams who are quite happy to combine a course with a project activity or a programme of coaching back in the workplace, can seem somewhat nonplussed by the idea of commissioning or managing what has become known as a blended solution.

There needs to be an acknowledgement that the e-learning industry did coin the phrase blended learning.  Whilst some in the learning and development field constantly tell me that all learning is a blend of different inputs and experiences - and they are, of course, right - I can't help feeling that this is essentially the same "told you so" brigade who were rubbing their flip chart pens together with glee when the idea of combining technology with face-to-face activities was first mooted.  Whilst it is a truism that we all learn how to do our jobs through a whole series of different experiences, the systematic approach to designing a blend of learning solutions was always relatively rare within organisations.  In fact, the course as the sole route to corporate enlightenment is still a belief that would seem to be highly prevalent.  Oh, I know that when engaged in a debate the course runners will re-position what they do in terms of the coherent approach to development using on-the-job experiences combined with formal educational inputs, but the practical reality is that in many corporate training offerings, the course stands out as the only game in town. The idea of a development programme - with its coaches, mentors, action learning sets, residential courses and work-based projects - is essentially the preserve of the fast tracked and the high flyer.

So what is in the mix which may refer to as a blended solution?  I would include a technology component - this may mean an online programme - providing a structured route to knowledge acquisition through a generic or custom designed series of e-learning objects.  But I would also want to widen access to all those other learning activities.  I want sales and customer services staff, shop floor production workers, nurses, support workers and people from all levels within our organisations to benefit from properly structured inputs from skilled coaches, to have a chance to be part of an action learning set and to benefit from supported work-based projects where the learning gained from the task is more important that the output of the task itself.

Of course, I also want people to have access to well run courses.  Learning is a social act and there's a lot to be said to participating in a well run face-to-face programme which properly uses the opportunities presented by bringing a team of people together to develop new insights and increased confidence with skills they need to develop.

All of these things form part of the mix - and a heady brew it can be.  But it can also be an unsatisfactory mess - a loose collection of inputs which lack clarity of purpose.  Certainly, I have been engaged in a quite traditional blended activity where pre-event e-learning had covered off many of the knowledge outcomes from the course and the event itself was supposed to submerge the delegates in debate, planning sessions and skills development activities.  What actually happened was that the academic running the programme (unconvinced that anyone would actually have used the e-learning and who hadn't deigned to access the programme himself) read his lecture supported by a series of very worthy overhead slides (yes, acetates - no flirting with the age of technology for him).  Needless to say the content was pretty similar in every regard to the content of the e-learning.  Those who had (according to the tracking system in use) stayed up until turned midnight to make sure they completed their pre-course activity were pretty miffed, I can tell you!

And here is our first pitfall.  If the blend is going to work smoothly, we need to make sure that the components do actually compliment one another.  The first mistake I see organisations make when preparing a blended solution is to be unclear about what each part of the process will do and how coherence will be achieved between these different elements.

So what do all the parts do?  Let's start with the most expensive bit - the course.  At this point, coffee is being spurted across desks the length and breadth of the country as trainers question my assertion about expense.  Surely I hear you splutter, the e-learning piece is usually more expensive!

Well, yes and no.  Whilst I agree someone probably has to sign a cheque with a number of noughts on the end for a reasonable e-learning solution, there are some costs savings to be made.  Now as I hope I've made clear I'm not a "use e-learning - it'll save you money" merchant.  However, I do think organisations underestimate how much a training course actually costs.  When I worked with a major high street retailer some time ago, all the store staff who attended training were on the training department's payroll for the period of time they were on a course.  With upwards of 90,000 staff, the cost of a universal course being an hour longer made a difference of over half a million pounds!  Have a look at your training budget for the year.  For most of you, I bet the expense of trainers and facilitators, room hire, travel and subsistence, catering and consumables takes up the highest proportion of your budget. 

Similarly I put a proposal into a government department for a blended one year development programme in association with a major university.  Despite the fact that this was a business school, I couldn't get the team from the university to understand that their insistence on 25 days attendance per person (rather than the more manageable ten days I had proposed) was the equivalent of employing ten additional senior members of staff per year across a relatively small cohort.  Needless to say, the client's procurement team could do the maths and we didn't get the gig!

So what do we do with the face-to-face course?

I made a rather sweeping statement earlier that learning is a social activity.  Let's unpack that for a moment.

There are three things which underpin my assertion about learning and socialising.

The first is that we often need change validated by others. 

The idea of learning as a route to enabling people to "do things differently and do different things" implies a process of change which may be individual or it may be organisational/cultural.  The social side of the change process is about feeling that the ideas are accepted by others and that the change activities are validated through that acceptance.  One of the downsides of this is that trainers are in the role of 'sales people' for the information/behaviour change they advocate.  Frankly, some trainers don't feel that comfortable with this directive or persuasive approach, preferring a softer facilitation approach.  Where a change is not welcomed, sometimes this facilitative approach doesn't have the tools and techniques to change hearts and minds.

In essence the social side of learning can undermine the change required if the general opinion expressed by the group is "this will never work" or similar.  Part of the socialising of learning is to gain group acceptance for the relevance, importance or simple workability of the changes proposed.  The social process relies - to an extent - on what's in it for me

The second idea is best captured by a quote from Brent Wilson.  He said: A constructivist learning environment is, "a place where learners may work together and support each other as they use a variety of tools and information resources in their guided pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving activities."

This seems to me to create the idea that the group learn formally from the exercises and the input of experts and informally from the ideas and experiences expressed by other learners.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but whilst I am interested in role models and delegates on the course providing a positive quasi-expert input on certain subjects, I often think that learning happens equally where one or more learners reject the approach taken by another, especially where the set up of the exercise or event requires them to argue the case and justify their opinions. 

The third compelling reason for the face to face experience is the practicing skills in a safe environment with feedback.

We can break down most learning objectives into three areas:  Attitude, Knowledge and Skills.  It seems to me that attitude - changing people's receptiveness to learn and their willingness to act differently after their learning process - needs a constant focus.  This is the one area which cuts across all our different learning modes. 

Knowledge - learning facts, figures and procedures and being able to put them to use - can be addressed in many different ways - including e-learning.  Despite over a quarter of century of a PowerPoint, we all have to come to the uncomfortable realisation that endless presentations do not help people acquire new knowledge.  But is e-Learning any better?  Yes if you can get people to use it, where there is a failure to address the motivation to learn, the e-learning programme may be the best ever designed, but how would anyone know unless they are required and motivated to click on the icon?

Once the knowledge has been acquired (and possibly tested if you require everyone to be at a similar standard) then you may wish to move on to skills - starting with practice sessions in a workshop or classroom environment and moving on to guided and supervised practice as competence is slowly developed in the workplace.

In my model a blend may look like this:

In this example, the programme's launch is designed to gain interest and to tackle immediate motivation.  Using leaders, facts about the desirability of change and potential reward strategies, learners understand the process and its importance.

The e-learning is integral - learners must complete the e-learning before attending the workshops, where through a series of role plays or practice activities the learners gain confidence.  The work-based practice may involve projects or activities, supported by local facilitators or coaches, who may be line managers or specially deployed trainers.

I hope it goes without saying that the e-learning element needs to constantly reinforce the motivation to learn.  Its focus should be on creating an interactive, engaging and memorable presentation of new material.  Preferably a learner's route through the programme will be personalised, recognising knowledge they already have and supplementing it with highly relevant examples. 

There are two other features of e-learning which help cement the melange of ingredients in our blend.  The first is the ability to track completion.  The ability of e-learning programmes to deliver a report on learner progress and completion - either via a learning management system or independently - is hugely useful in achieving our ‘level playing field' of learner understanding. 

The tracking system can also assist with the engagement of line managers.  With one of our clients, following up on tracking reports  is not with the learners direct, but with their line managers - calling them to account for encouraging and enabling the learning to happen.  My first ever online programme used this facility to great effect.  Learners who hadn't completed the e-learning successfully, didn't gain access to the workshop which followed it!  This also benefits delegates and trainers by ensuring that the trainer can feel comfortable dispensing with those components of the workshop which are covered in the e-learning.

As well as freeing up the time in the workshop (and potentially shortening this expensive experience) it means more time can be made for the learning processes which can't be undertaken online.  Let's be honest when using the one course fits all approach - we've all been in a session when the trainer has run out of time and the skills based exercise has had to be shelved so people could get home at a reasonable hour.  This way, the experiential skills based learning is prioritised upfront without compromising on the sound base of knowledge required for the skills to make sense.

The mix of elements within your blend may include workshops, e-learning programmes alongside work-based implementation with support from other learners, facilitators and coaches.

The important factor to consider in developing your blend is the role you expect each of these elements to play in the learning journey you have created and in achieving learning objectives in a logical sequence.

I believe there are real advantages in creating a coherent blend of interventions.  Most importantly, the well designed blended programme mirrors the way we learn in real life - matching our preferences and our needs more precisely than any approach based on a single mode of delivery.

Contact information

Donna Bennett

• Contact e-mail: donna.bennett@ascentpr.co.uk
• Contact telephone: 0118 988 0501
• Website URL: http://www.infinitylearning.co.uk/elearning/