Why You Should Not Consider Computer-Based Training as an Impactful Solution

e-Learning or e-Suffering?

Computers. I'm working on one as I type this blogpost. Have they ever taught me anything? This is a really thoughtful question as I tend to believe they are fairly useless when it comes to Computer-Based Training. However, when used as an electronic method to deliver a video on how to do something, or allow me to play a learning game, now we start breaking into the real world of e-Learning! Apologies if my opinions seem volatile, as I can assure you they are well thought out over the course of many years.

Okay, Merriam-Webster online dictionary, what does it mean to learn?

• "To gain knowledge or skill by studying, practicing, being taught, or experiencing something."
• (My absolute favorite definition is the intransitive verb one: ) "To acquire knowledge or skill or a behavioral tendency"

Can I acquire knowledge or skill or a behavioral tendency by using a computer-based training module? Let's find out:

Passes, but only for low order Objectives

I can absolutely study something I read on a computer just like written in any book. In this way, ANY written media can be used to study from in a book. Does this mean I am understanding what I read? Just because I read the words in a Charles Dickens story, does not mean I understand any of it. Which means we are potentially stuck at the lowest order of the Cognitive learning realm, where we may be able to remember some content, if we have a great memory. Not everyone can take a dataset and see a story in it, so if it is the first time you are seeing something, there is certain a chance that you may not understand it, just by reading it.

Practicing something on the computer doesn't pass this test.

If the (arguably) best way I can learn something is to practice it myself, I most likely am not going to get to do that (or ask any questions) with a computer. I do really love videos where I can learn by watching someone else doing something - I am totally on board with that type of learning method. In the Psycho-Motor learning realm, where skills are improved, the lowest level of skill learning, is to imitate others. This gets us on the board, but still at a pretty low level. Can you practice a skill in a computer-based environment? Perhaps if a simulation is strong enough or you bring Augmented or Virtual Reality to the table. So, to overcome the weakness, we must bring some type of reality to the show.

With no teacher to talk to and ask questions, students can't get that important feedback, or learn from each other's question.

Now, continuing down this path, if we are to learn something, we should be taught something. This is unfortunately a bit gray, as to whom (or what) is doing the teaching. A narration, or a video, can accomplish what a classroom instructor may say or show you how to do something. If you go back to the online dictionary and look at the word, "teach", it means to cause to know. This brings us to how do we determined if someone (a learner) was "caused to know" something? With a test of some kind: something (such as a series of questions or exercises) for measuring the skill, knowledge, intelligence, capacities, or aptitudes of an individual or group. Can someone be proved to be taught by passing a test? This has been a bit of a struggle in the learning profession, because someone may have learned enough to past the test, but not enough to imply the new knowledge, skill, or attitude, given a proper situation. This is why learning objectives are written at certain order levels, and tested to those same levels. Can an appropriate learning section and then an assessment be developed in CBT format? I would agree that CBTs would work in this case IF, and only IF, there was still an instructor that would field questions by the students. Often-times, when Ive taken a CBT, it was try and if you failed a question, try again until you succeeded and then move to the next section. Does that really appropriately gauge my understanding of a topic?

I've never "experienced something" with computer based training.

Finally, if I am to learn, I must "experience something." I LOVE this part the most! Dynamic learning activities should be built on that tenant. Computer-based training is extremely limited when trying to get you to "experience something"; using electronic learning, students may be able to use a game system, or perform some type of simulation, but this isn't impactful and rarely attempted in a CBT.

Conclusion

We must face it, most general CBTs are there for us to read slide by slide or have the narrator read to us. They are used to get widespread messages to employees (old and new) and then have trackable assessments to gauge acceptance (but not retention) of the new information. The attractive selling points are that they are cheap, can be delivered any location and any time of day. They have slick Learning Management System tracking devices to easily see whom has and hasn't participated.

Opinion: Have CBTs ever moved the learning needle any more than traditional training? No. If they "caused"you to read something you weren't going to read, then if you still remember it, you have a great retention skill that some learners do not have. That is all. Read a book.

With so many online universities (which can be set up differently that the CBT method I've been describing), and so many people in the workforce with these degrees, it's scary to think how much learning has NOT taken place, and what was a huge waste of time and money for the learner. They pay for the degree/certificate, not the learning.

So, here's my main education-theory-based reason why Computer-based learning outright sucks - The methodology has a really hard time kicking a learner into a higher order objective level. Most of it (even what feels like application) is purely rote memorization for the test at the end. No significant learning transfers this way.

Refreshing old training, and assessing how much you still remember from it, should be the primary purpose of computer-based training.