7 - Examination of Successful VILT Practices

White Paper

by

General Physics Corporation

Studying the Virtual Classroom:An Examination of Successful VILT Practices

www.gpworldwide.com

© General Physics Corporation 2010

William WestVice President, Learning Solutions

Matthew DonovanExecutive Director, Client Services

Rose BenedicksSenior Instructional Designer

Laurie CarmodySenior Instructional Designer

1

Studying the Virtual Classroom: An Examination of Successful VILT Practices

“ “I tell you and you forget.I show you and you remember.I involve you and you understand.

– Eric Butterworth

Although this quote applies to most training initiatives, it is even more relevant to the designand implementation of Virtual Instructor-led Training (VILT), the online counterpart to traditionalInstructor-Led Training (ILT). With the conflicting requirements of travel costs and the need toreach a larger learner base, organizations are searching for increasingly cost-effective methodsto deliver effective training. The data produced by this survey reveals that VILT is one of thefastest growing techniques selected to resolve this paradox. VILT delivers an appealing andefficient alternative to the time, travel and resources required by instructor-led training. As thetechnologies to support VILT continue to improve in availability, functionality and ease of use,organizations are increasingly turning to this technology as a solution. The apparent question isnow how to create “effective” VILT sessions.

General Physics Corporation (GP) partnered with Training Industry, Inc. to help answer thatquestion. In March 2010, we conducted a survey of 114 learning professionals across a widerange of companies to determine how and why organizations are using VILT in their trainingprograms. The results of that study provide a strong overview of the case for VILT, as well asinsight into how you can implement VILT programs in your organization.

Studying the Virtual Classroom: An Examination of Successful VILT PracticesSurveying the Industry About VILT

In March 2010, GP commissioned Training Industry, Inc. toconduct a broad survey on how and why VILT is being usedas a delivery method. Respondents included 114 learningprofessionals across a wide range of organizations. In thesurvey, VILT was defined as any live or synchronous trainingin which the instructors deliver or facilitate courses throughthe web and/or teleconferencing to attendees in differentlocations. Specific research questions included but were notlimited to:• How are companies effectively using VILT?• What are the strengths and limitations of VILT?• What are the critical drivers that determine success?• How can VILT be successfully blended with other delivery

modalities?

Who responded to the survey?Of the 114 learning professionals who responded to the survey,111 respondents reported that they used (101) or consideredusing (10) VILT. The respondents ranged from beginners to“pioneers” of VILT (those using VILT since 2001). The resultsrepresent a wide range of companies. Twenty-three percent ofrespondents work in companies with 1,001 to 5,000 employees,18% in companies with over 20,000 employees, and 40% incompanies with less than 1,000 employees. Twenty percentof the respondents were from Fortune 500 companies. Fifteenindustries were represented, including government andeducation. The most widely represented industries includedTechnology (17%), Banking/Financial/Insurance (16%) andBusiness Services/Consulting (15%). The second tier includedTraining and Development (9%), Telecommunications (7%),Health Care (6%) and Pharmaceuticals (5%).(Figure 1, Appendix A).

How was the data analyzed?Data analysis included assessing averages to identify trendsand commonalities. To better understand what VILT practicesmay impact effectiveness, respondents who self-reported being“very effective” at delivering VILT (the VE group) werecompared to those who reported being “somewhat effective”or “not effective.” Notable differences between the two groupsare highlighted to help determine what may influencesuccessful VILT implementation.

2

Analyzing the Results

VILT use is growingVILT is included in a rapidly growing percent of all corporatetraining. According to the survey results, approximately 27%of courses in 2009 included VILT. The most common growthrate was over 25%. Thirty-three percent say their VILT coursesgrew by this much in 2009, and 37% expect this growth rateto continue in 2010 (Figure 2, Appendix A).

There are multiple organizational drivers for theincreasing use of VILTThe ability to effectively train a growing audience at acontrollable cost is the primary driver to using VILT.Respondents indicate the two most important drivers for usingVILT are to reduce travel costs and time (100%) and increasethe number of people trained (75%). A closer look at thecompanies in the VE group also illustrated that increasingeffectiveness (80%) and delivering training with greaterconsistency (65%) as significant drivers for using VILT(Figure 3, Appendix A).

There are a range of topics being delivered throughVILTThe topics used most often by respondents in VILT includecustomer/product training (58%), professional development(54%) and sales training (42%). When looking through thelens of the VE group, the same topics were rated in the topthree at 65%, 60% and 50% respectively; additionally, the VEgroup also used VILT training for compliance courses (50%).Soft skill subject areas were a notable second tier, includingleadership skills (33%), management/supervision (29%),on-boarding (29%), customer service (26%) and administrativeskills (25%) (Figure 4, Appendix A).

Beyond the DataComparing the average VILT users with those identified as “veryeffective” demonstrated that the primary topics of the two groupswere identical. It is likely that—given the topics—these are VILTsessions that are focused on “the field,” the distributedemployees that consist of sales professionals and otheremployees who do not reside predominately in the corporateoffices. The cost of audiences that travel to the traditional ILTclasses would be highest, and coordination of the employeeswith an onsite training schedule would be most complex.

The data also revealed that while training organizations may atfirst focus on the time and cost savings that benefit the top ratetopic areas, as they become more experienced with thetechnology, they begin to look at how they can more effectivelydeliver a wider range of topics through VILT for an increasingnumber of learners. The VE group expanded their top tier toinclude Compliance topics—another subject area that impactsa wide range of employees (if not all) distributed across theorganization (both in the corporate office and in the field).

Studying the Virtual Classroom: An Examination of Successful VILT PracticesWe will address how the VE group overcomes the engagementlimitations. However, participants are then challenged by thesecond limiting factor of remote participation. In a traditionalclassroom, you have a captured audience. The requirement fora physical presence carries weight. If the employee doesn’t showup, then it’s very obvious. However, this weight does notconsistently carry over with VILT. Given that the employees areremote and potentially unfamiliar to each other, there is noattached stigma to non-attendance. Through our experience,the greatest influence that can increase attendance iscommitment from the employee’s manager to complete thetraining. Manager involvement in the registration of theemployee in the VILT and reporting back the completion of theVILT will increase the exposure and likelihood that the employeewill attend.

Companies are blending VILT with a range ofother training formatsVILT appears to be often used as part of a more comprehensivesolution. Survey respondents indicated that roughly halfof their VILT courses are part of a blended solution.These VILT sessions are most often mixed with onlineself-study/e-learning, ILT, and print or other support materials.

Beyond the DataIn our experience, many blended solutions consist of offlinepre-work (online courses or self-study guides) with liveinteraction. Standalone online training programs are often usedfor the pre-work. VILT may be gaining popularity because itoffers many of the benefits of the online solutions, but it isperceived to be easier to build than standalone e-learning, whilethe medium itself is more familiar to the employees given itssimilarity to traditional ILT.

Companies are using a range of engagement toolsduring and after the VILT sessionAs noted earlier, the lack of engagement is the primarylimitation noted by the respondents. To overcome this issue,the VILT platforms offer numerous tools that can be integratedinto the session. According to our results, the most commonengagement tools used during VILT delivery include liveconversation (82%), chat (64%), polls (54%) and quizzes(54%). Each of these tools requires interaction by the student;participation can be monitored by the facilitator.

The survey also revealed that these tools are commonly usedafter the VILT session. The most common tools include quizzes(31%), live conversation (24%), blogs (23%), forums (19%),chats (15%) and polls (13%). These are also tools that requirestudent interaction; however, participation is more passive andnot required.

Analysis of the VE group identifies that, although they usethe same engagement tools as the other respondents, they usemore engagement tools overall (during and after).More specifically, the data demonstrated that the VE grouphad a profound increase in use of tools after the sessions(Figure 7, Appendix A).

Companies are using a range of technologies todeliver VILTThere are dozens of competing platforms that facilitate VILT.According to the survey results, companies are using a varietyof delivery technologies. The most commonly reported areWebEx (52%), Live Meeting (41%) and GoToWebinar/GoToTraining (27%). The majority of the companies surveyedreported using multiple software programs to deliver VILT(Figure 5, Appendix A).

Beyond the DataWhile the number of competing platforms continues to grow,the leading providers hold a dominant advantage. There is nodefault leader and it’s possible that most companies do not yethave a standard provider of VILT services; so the decision as towhat platform to use is left to the designer of the VILT session.This could be why the majority of those respondents indicatedthat they used multiple providers. Given that VILT is still arelatively new training delivery platform, it is quite possiblethat many company IT departments have not yet set a standard(mandated) for VILT, leaving the option open for the end usersto deploy the platform that they are most comfortable using.

There are two main limitations to successful VILTimplementationThe disconnected nature of VILT—the students and facilitatorare not in the same room—produces many challenges.Respondents reported that the main limitations to successfulVILT implementation include lack of full engagement andtechnology issues. (Some of the techniques being applied toincrease engagement and encourage active participation areidentified in the Using This Data to Your Benefit section.)Additionally, the VE group also reported a third limitationthat involved learners canceling their attendance in sessions(Figure 6, Appendix A).

Beyond the DataThe distributed audience of VILT poses two significantchallenges. Foremost, the employees participating in the VILTsessions are balancing their attention with many distractionsin their office. It is reasonable to assume that the employees arenot isolated in a room and 100% focused on the VILT session.More likely, they are probably balancing their attention withemail, surrounding employees and other distractions.

3


4

Beyond the DataThe tools available with the VILT platforms offer manypossibilities for interaction. However, it highlights the need forinstructional design in the creation of VILT. Straight lectureand a couple polling questions will not be enough to keep youraudience engaged. Good instructional design can apply the toolsto keep the audience engaged, and also apply these tools inways that reinforce learning. The misperception is that anexisting ILT can simply be executed online using VILTtechnology and still produce the same result. The reality is thatthe ILT course must be redesigned to incorporate theseinteractive tools and reassess the needs of the learner to producethe same result.

While using VILT does reduce travel costs and could potentiallyreach a larger audience for a lower cost, the cost of design anddevelopment may be higher than its ILT equivalent whenaccounting for engagement opportunities and contentstructuring for the VILT environment. Nonetheless,a well-designed VILT can produce substantial cost savings overclassroom training.

The average VILT class size is 20 learners or lessThe vast majority of VILT programs include the same numberof students as their ILT equivalents. A smaller class sizefacilitates better interaction. According to the survey results,the average VILT class size is 20 learners or less, with theVE group reporting an even smaller average class size(14 learners). This goes against the common assumptionthat VILT will help instructors reach large audiences“in a single session.”

Beyond the DataWhile the ability to reach a large audience without the cost oftravel is realized by VILT, the individual classes themselvesshould still remain manageable to allow for adequate interactionbetween the facilitator and learners. A webcast, whereinformation is merely presented to a wide audience, is not thesame thing as VILT where new skills are developed. Classroommanagement is still required in VILT for the successfulapplication of the interactivity tools.

Facilitation skills and subject matter expertise aretwo important instructor characteristicsRegardless of class size, respondents reported almostunanimously that facilitation skills and topic-matter expertiseare the two important factors when selecting an instructor forVILT. The VE group placed higher “critical” status on thesetwo instructor skills. These are typical requirements forinstructors in any form of training. However, the next mostcritical/important facilitator skill was ease with usingtechnology and VILT-specific skills, followed byunderstanding the audience needs and classroom management.These are the new skill requirements of the VILT instructors.The survey results illustrate that the instructor must know howto use the technology and understand the unique needs of aremote audience (Figure 8, Appendix A).

Beyond the DataWe have found that a facilitator who has excellent onlinefacilitation skills and subject matter expertise is critical toconnecting with learners. However, just as important is theability to manage the use of the tools and resolve technicalissues. Therefore, we often used an additional person whoprovides technical support for the VILT audience and helpsfacilitate the usage of the interactive tools.

Presenting content while also managing any technical issuesthat learners are facing can be difficult and can delay and/oraffect the learning experience. In addition, compiling the resultsof exercises and interactions, and preparing them to presentback to the audience takes time and can also delay or affect thelearning experience. Using more than one facilitator for a VILTsession allows one facilitator to stay focused on the topic,while the other can address technical issues and supportinteractive activities.

Many companies seek support from internal teamsand external service providersManagement of the overall technology that supported VILT isone of the key influencers of success. Part of the survey focusedon support and centralization of support services. The backoffice functions of administration, scheduling and evaluationare areas in which companies are using the fewest externalservice providers. Use of internal and external service providerswho assist with design and delivery of the instruction,particularly those methods with interactive functionality,is most common. Overall, course design and delivery wasthe area in which most respondents indicated usingexternal support.

Studying the Virtual Classroom: An Examination of Successful VILT PracticesUsing This Data to Your Benefit

The survey data identified many practices that you can adoptto improve the quality of your VILT—examples includeblending VILT with other learning modalities; leveragingcollaboration tools before, during and after sessions;and engaging smaller class sizes. Adding to thoserecommendations, we’ve extrapolated the survey data andcombined it with our own experience in designing effectiveVILT to deliver the following suggestions.

Focus on small, scalable wins before implementingorganization wide.When implementing VILT, it is a good idea to start small asyou become more comfortable with the design of engagingVILT sessions and VILT technology. Start with subject areasthat offer the highest ROI, such as sales and product training,and with an audience that is most likely to be successfuladopting a new technology. As you expand the scope of yourVILT offerings, you can incorporate your best practices,expand to a broader subject base and apply any data you’vecollected about the ROI in VILT.

Design your VILT to engage learners in theexperience.The more technology you put between the learner and content,the more you need to design engaging experiences that allowlearners to connect with the content, with the facilitator andwith each other. Incorporating collaboration tools and blendedformats into your design, during and after the sessions, can beeffective in delivering learner engagement.

Build mastery of the technology before large-scaleimplementation.Technology does not always run smoothly for facilitators.That goes for the end users as well. The simple act of logginginto the online course site itself can hamper an employee’sability to participate. Consider the types of support that yourend users may need—before, during and after a VILT session.This helps achieve a stronger human connection in theVILT session.

Use a team of facilitators.Given the technological challenges associated with VILT, oneway to minimize confusion and frustration is to use a team offacilitators. For example, one facilitator’s role would be topresent content and lead activities, while the other wouldaddress participant technical issues, manage polls and monitorchats. Team facilitators do not need to be in the same location,as long as they are coordinated and have a strategy forconducting the session.

Gain commitment and enforce accountability.To ensure success for VILT, gain learner commitment fromthe employees and their managers to make it clear thatattendance and participation are expected. Managementsupport and reinforcement is a critical factor to establishinglearner engagement and accountability.

Moving Forward in the VirtualClassroom

Based on these survey results, it’s likely that VILT will continueto grow in popularity and use. As companies continue to useVILT to reach audiences at a distance, they will face many ofthe same challenges inherent in the implementation of anynew technology. The new technology offers many benefits ifit is applied effectively. In the VILT context—where we arefocused on the development of knowledge, skills, andperformance abilities—it is critical to have an intimateunderstanding of the needs of the learner and how to leveragethe technology to produce the desired result; both theexpectation for effectiveness you seek and the result the learnerdesires.

About General Physics CorporationGP is a global training, consulting and engineering companythat helps performance-driven organizations solve businessissues while creating pathways for continuous improvement.

GP’s approach to teamwork is personalized and reinforced bya strong commitment to earning client satisfaction.GP’s professionals are dedicated to providing the superiorservice and flexible solutions that have been the hallmark ofthe company for more than 40 years. From custom training,sales training and consulting to talent management andbusiness process outsourcing, when working with GP,clients can count on a tailored approach that focuses on theirbusiness goals.

For more information, visit www.gpworldwide.com orcall 1-888-843-4784.

About Training Industry, Inc.Training Industry, Inc. and their portal, TrainingIndustry.com,spotlight the latest news, articles, case studies and bestpractices within the training industry. Their focus is on helpingdedicated business and training professionals get theinformation, insight and tools needed to more effectivelymanage the business of learning. For more information, go towww.trainingindustry.com or call 1-866-298-4203.

5

Studying the Virtual Classroom: An Examination of Successful VILT PracticesMatthew DonovanMatt, Executive Director of Client Services within GP LearningSolutions at General Physics Corporation, has an M.S. inInstructional Systems Technology and over 15 years’experience crafting training and development solutions witha focus on e-learning and the use of problem-based learningand performance simulations. His teams have developede-learning that has earned top honors from Brandon Hall andHorizon Interactive. Matt has also received an ISPI 2009Presidential Citation, and in 2009, he was named by TrainingMagazine as one of the Top 10 Young Trainers.

Rose BenedicksRose is a Team Leader and Senior Instructional Designer atGeneral Physics Corporation. She has an M.S. in InstructionalSystems Technology and a degree in technical writing.She has extensive needs analysis and instructional designexperience—online and classroom—with a focus on story andscenario-based online learning. Rose has played lead roles inprojects for several Fortune 500 companies in technology,healthcare and consumer products. Her experience includesworking with highly technical and creative marketing contentin a corporate environment.

Laurie CarmodyLaurie is an Instructional Designer at General PhysicsCorporation and has a M.S. in Instructional SystemsTechnology. She is also a Certified Professional in Learningand Performance (CPLP) from the American Society ofTraining and Development (ASTD). Laurie has experiencedesigning and developing instruction in highly regulatedcorporations as well as delivering technology classes at thecollege level.

Author Contact InformationFor more information, please contact

William WestVice President, Learning Solutions

[email protected]

Matthew Donovan Executive Director, Client Services

[email protected]

Rose BenedicksSenior Instructional Designer

[email protected]

Laurie CarmodySenior Instructional [email protected]

General Physics Corporation6095 Marshalee Drive, Suite 300, Elkridge, MD 21075

[email protected] Quote Ref. Code: White Paper - VILT Practices 7.20.10.pmd

6

Additional ResourcesThe following are resources we have found useful throughoutour experience of designing and implementing VILT.

Clark, R.C. (2005). Harnessing the Virtual Classroom. Trainingand Development, 59 (11), 41-45.

Clark, R.C., and Kwinn, A. (2007). The New VirtualClassroom: Evidence-Based Guidelines for Synchronous e-Learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Corbett, W.G., & Huggett, C. (2009, November). Designingfor the Virtual Classroom. InfoLine.

Driscoll, M., & Rocky, C. (2002, September). TeachingTechnical Skills & Knowledge in the Live Virtual Classroom:20 Best Practices for Using Application Sharing. ASTDNewsletter.

Hofmann, Jennifer. (2003). The Synchronous Trainer’sSurvival Guide: Facilitating Successful Live and OnlineCourses, Meetings, and Events. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Hofmann, Jennifer. (2004). Live and Online!: Tips,Techniques, and Ready-to-Use Activities for the VirtualClassroom. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Hofmann, Jennifer. (2005). How to Design for the Live OnlineClassroom: Creating Great Interactive and CollaborativeTraining Using Web Conferencing. Sunnyvale, TX: BrandonHall.

Huggett, Cindy. (2010). Virtual Training Basics. Alexandria,VA: ASTD Press.

Hyder, Karen, et al. (2007). The eLearning Guild’s Handbookon Synchronous e-Learning. Santa Rosa, CA: The eLearningGuild. Free eBook available at www.elearningguild.com.

Pulchino, J. (2005). The Synchronous E-Learning ResearchReport 2005. The eLearning Guild Research.www.elearningGuild.com.

Stonebraker, P.W., & Hazeltine, J.E. (2004). Virtual LearningEffectiveness: An Examination of the Process. The LearningOrganization, 11 (32), 209-225.

Wang, A.Y., & Newlin, M.H. (2002). Predictors ofPerformance in the Virtual Classroom: Identifying and HelpingAt-Risk Cyber-Students. T.H.E. Journal, 29 (10), 21-28.

About the AuthorsWilliam WestBill, a Vice President within GP Learning Solutions at GeneralPhysics Corporation, has 25 years’ experience in organizationchange management, education technology and processreengineering. He has directed performance developmentorganizations that have won 18 international competitions.He founded Option Six, an e-learning development company,which was awarded seven state entrepreneurship awards andwas named three times in the Inc. 5000. Bill was recentlynamed Entrepreneur of the Year by the Small BusinessDevelopment Center.

Training | Consulting | Engineering

Studying the Virtual Classroom: An Examination of Successful VILT PracticesAppendix A

7

2%

10%

9%

11%

14%

18%

37%

0%

16%

10%

12%

11%

18%

33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Decrease

Stayed about the same

Increase of 5 - 9.9%

Increase of 10 - 14.9%

Increase of 15 - 25%

Increase of over 25%

Percent of Respondents

Growth in Number of VILT Courses

Actual: 2008 to 2009 Expected: 2009 to 2010

N = 92 (Actual) N = 102 (Expected)

Increase of less than 5%

2% 2% 2%

3% 3%

4% 4% 4% 4%

5% 6%

7% 9%

15% 16%

17%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Other Retail

Wholesale Distribution Manufacturing Transportation

Construction/Engineering Services Education (K - graduate)

Government Non - profit

Pharmaceuticals Health care

Telecommunications Training and Development

Business Services / Consulting Banking/Finance/Insurance

Technology (Hardware, Software, etc.)


Respondents’ Industries

N =109

Other= Utilities & Automotive Services

Figure 2

Figure 1


Figure 3

Figure 4

8

22% 25% 26%

29% 29%

32% 33% 33%

42% 54%

58%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Project Management Administrative topics

Customer service Onboarding

Management/supervisory training IT

Leadership training Compliance training

Sales training Professional development Customer/product training

Percent of Respondents N =101

Topics Delivered using VILT

65%60%50%50%

VE Data

5% 11%

18% 8% 9% 18%

14% 28%

46%

25% 28%

34% 46% 47%

39% 45%

47% 44%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Measure attentiveness and participation Involve more co. leaders/subject experts

Reduce time in physical classrooms Increased user acceptance for VILT Improved VILT technology available

Deliver training with greater consistency Increase effectiveness

Increase number of people trained Reduce travel costs and time

Importance Ratings for VILT Drivers Critical Important

N =106 Percent of Respondents

(65% / 35%)

(47% / 37%)

(10% / 70%)

(20% / 45%)

(25% / 60%)

VE Data


Figure 5

Figure 6

9

14%

18%

20%

23%

43%

71%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not meeting attendance goals

High cancellation rates

Finding qualified instructors

Cost

Technology

Lack of full engagement


Limitations of VILT

N =109

* 75%

35%

20%

15%

30%

20%

VE Data

N =101

4%

5%

7%

11%

23%

27%

41%

52%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

iLinc

Sametime (IBM Lotus)

Centra (Saba)

Internally developed product

Connect (Adobe)

GoToWebinar (Citrix)

Live Meeting (Microsoft)

WebEx (Cisco)


VILT Technologies Used

Many of the companiessurveyed use multipletechnologies to deliver VILT


6%

9%

11%

23%

38%

29%

32%

59%

61%

31%

33%

32%

52%

40%

53%

53%

35%

35%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ability to assess ROI of VILT

Instructional design capabilities

Training material devel. capabilities

Classroom management skills

Understanding of audience needs

Overall VILT-specific skills training

Ease with using technology in general

Topic matter expertise

Facilitation skills

Importance of VILT Instructor Skills

Critical

Important

N =110

Technology skills in general and with VILT in particular are also important.

VE DataCritical Important (75% / 25%)

(70% / 25%)

(35% / 50%)

(25% / 45%)

(25% / 50%)

(25% / 65%)

1% 1% 2% 3% 8%

38% 48%

54% 54%

64% 82%

0% 50% 100%

Facebook LinkedIn

Twitter Blogs

Forums Rapid advancement

Animation Quizzes

Polls Chat

Live conversation


5% 6% 8% 8% 8%

13% 15%

19% 23% 24%

31%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Rapid advancement Facebook

LinkedIn Twitter

Animation Polls Chat

Forums Blogs

Live conversation Quizzes


Use of Engagement Tools for VILT

80%70%60%70%

35%35%35%35%35%

VE DataDuring Session

N=111 N=111

Appendix A

Figure 7

Figure 8

10

After Session

7 - Examination of Successful VILT Practices

Documents

Transcript of 7 - Examination of Successful VILT Practices