I think I am still pretty far from needing to wear sunglasses to avoid public recognition, but the incident made me think about how asynchronous learning extends the reach of one trainer. With one day's work, I had trained hundreds of people. However, people in the live seminar were able to ask questions and have them answered, while people who saw only the video did not have that opportunity.
On the other hand, people who saw the video could presumably stop the action, take time to practice the skills being taught, and then re-watch the action if needed. Even just the ability to re-wind and re-watch the action provides added value. That is still far from the interaction and involvement we try to encourage when creating eLearning courses, where we include constant opportunities for learners to practice the skills and actions they need to learn. Nevertheless, asynchronous training has some pretty compelling advantages.
But the reason I am thinking about all of this today is that I was recently asked how to show that live classroom training still has an advantage over eLearning. What? For years I have seen people struggling to prove the opposite–to prove that eLearning works. And now I was being asked to justify classroom training.
My question for you this week is probably an old, familiar one, but one that comes up in both directions in the training world. Which is better, classroom training/live interactive training or self-paced/asynchronous eLearning?
Are classroom trainers going the way of the dinosaur? Will we ever? Are there different reasons for different kinds of training? Is there room for both? Are there new ways to combine classroom and eLearning modes of training? Are you being asked these kinds of questions in your work?
If you have been dealing with these issues and questions, we would love to hear from you. Whether you have long since reached an opinion, or whether you are doing on-going research about this, I would like to know. I'll share the results here down the road.
***
