E-Learning: For and Against

E-Learning (E-L) is an ideal that's praised and scorned in equal measure. It has the potential to transform the way skills are acquired at work, but are today's E-L tools adequate to teach the skills needed in the future?

That was the subject of a debate at the Oxford Union last week, sponsored by E-L technology specialist Epic.

Proposing the motion 'This house believes that the E-L of today is essential for the important skills of tomorrow' was Professor Diana Laurillard of the University of London; Major General Tim Inshaw, director of training and education for the British Army; Andrew McGovern, Thompson Reuters VP strategic talent technology and Kirstie Donelly, learndirect director of products and marketing.

Opposing the motion was US E-L guru Dr Mark Rosenberg; SHL Group director, global training Claire Little, Olympic Delivery Authority HR head Wendy Cartwright and corporate learning analyst David Wilson.

Here's some of the pros and cons of current E-L that sprang from that debate.

Pros
Cons
(Pic: reeltor99 cc2.0)

Pros of E-Learning
"It's not rocket science. It's much more complex. Rocketry is about moving atoms, E-L is about moving minds. - Professor Diana Laurillard."

• Knowledge is not static, but a continually evolving organism that doesn't fit the rote-learning from books that is the mainstay of traditional training.
• Students are used to building up a network of global contacts. They are familiar with using technology as a learning tool and will demand it in the future.
• E-L cuts the time taken to explore complex physical objects (such as engines). You don't have to take them apart physically to see inside.
• E-L allows students to learn about hazardous environments virtually, allowing them to gain experience in safety.
• E-L cuts the need for residential learning, keeping high-performing employees at their work-place, not in the classroom
• Experts are in short supply. E-L can give more students access to them than would realistically fit in a classroom.
• E-L allows students much more opportunity to consult with peers and superiors, all over the organisation, while they are learning.
• Economies of scale: Any global company putting together an integrated training strategy will have to go down the E-L route - it's just too unwieldy and costly to implement a world-wide classroom learning programme.

• E-L has been in development for the last 30-40 years and so far has had little impact on the acquisition of knowledge. Only 20 per cent of businesses world-wide have E-L within their training strategy. It's rated far below face-to-face learning in terms of effectiveness.
• Being technology driven, there is a danger of focusing on the medium and giving no thought to the actual content.
• E-L undermines the pedagogy that is the fulcrum of traditional teaching. It democratises development, deprofessionalising training practitioners in the process. It's difficult to tell the sages from the charlatans.
• E-L teaches black and white subjects well (such as, how to put together an engine), but fails to teach the soft skills, such as leadership, influencing and decision-making that will be critical to business in the future.
• The technology promises much, but the reality is even in the UK, the baseline connectivity benchmark will still be inadequate for supplying multimedia E-L. And that's in a country with a developed communications infrastructure. Much of the rest of the world is only just starting to offer internet connectivity.
• E-L is all too often used as a sop to compliance. Learners are provided with a click/turn PowerPoint presentation that they can easily race through without even reading anything. Often, there's no focus on how successful the training has been.
• On paper, there may be cost benefits, but a smaller budget spent on something that doesn't work is still money wasted.