Does E-Learning Work?
This is certainly a very stupid question, proving that there are such things as stupid questions, but in addition to being the wrong question to ask, it can stimulate thinking on the topic. Here’s an interchange between Robert Bacal and Sam Lane circa 2000.
On 30 Nov 00, at 16:09, Sam Lane wrote:
The question raised is “does e-learning
> work?” The answer is that anytime there is learning then a learner worked.
…actually not any old learning but the desired learning but no matter.
> When we fail it is because we were arrogant enough to believe that our
> customers should accept our product however we deem to present it. When
> “e-learning”, or any other technique or tool, fails it is because it was
> poorly applied and we excused its weakness by defining “weakness” as the
> norm in a developing technology.
I agree, in a sense. But it isn’t that simple. We tend to grab onto some technologies without looking at the SYSTEM in which it is to work…the human factor if you like. It isn’t enough that a technology CAN
contribute to learning, but that it DOES so consistently, across people, contexts and situations. Otherwise it cannot be cost effective since one must run parallel training (eg. f2f AND machine mediated).
Let me give you an example or two. Desktop computers have been trumpeted as productivity enhancers for white collar jobs. But oddly enough, if you look at productivity figures for those jobs over the last decade plus, you find that producitivity estimates indicated that white collar productivity DROPPED. (I believe the recent figures may show that reversing).
Why? Perhaps lots of reasons. The pull of technology (on the human factor side) is such that people used it when it was not appropriate, or when it was less efficient than other methods. You can argue that it was improperly used, but some technologies WILL be improperly used in the hands of users.
Second example: TV. When TV emerged (probably in the sixties) as an “instructional force” it was proclaimed as a revolution in education for schools. But what people didn’t anticipate was that a) people don’t learn very well from television (at least academically speaking). They don’t assimilate information from it because they don’t USE television that way; b) the use of television in schools could not possibly result in cost savings since you just can’t REPLACE teachers…you could
augment a bit, but you couldn’t possibly teach kids via television for any substantial part of the day.
Bottom line was that schools (I recall ours) had a roomful of big TV’s on fancy stands bought at huge taxpayer cost that basically just sat there until a) there was a space launch or b) some other unique event.
Finally, I know of a number of companies with machine mediated learning labs which sit, unused, quite simply because people don’t WANT to use them.
…just like very few people (some do) don’t really WANT to take a university course via TV. (check your local university for enrollment figures).