1

Learning at the Speed of LightB Y J E F F C R E I G H T O N

There is no question that web-based learning ishaving a profound impact on how we, as a society,acquire and master new skills and absorb informa-tion. E-learning technologies provide access tolearning opportunities 24 hours a day, seven daysa week. We now have the beginnings of a tech-

nology revolution that will help futurists andmanagement gurus like Peter Drucker realize theirvision of the “knowledge society”, where what weknow, both individually and organizationally,becomes the new basis for economic value. “Thecontinuing professional education of adults is theNo. 1 gross industry in the next 30 years, but notin the traditional form,” states Drucker. “In fiveyears, we will deliver most of our executive man-agement programs online.” According to DougDonzelli, the CEO of Pensare, “The core ofeKnowledge, the Internet, will “democratize”learning, providing greater access at lower cost,ultimately improving quality.”

So, at this point, I’d like to make a somewhatbold statement about my view on the future of

distance learning; I believe we are years awayfrom providing an experience that will deliver thesame outcomes as those of the traditional class-room, and we may never get there. And we don’thave to. Both types of learning delivery will havea solid place in the education map of the future.

Learning Vs.EducationI believe that we have ill-defined expectations for e-learning, and have usedthese expectations as acomparison to traditionallearning models. We areasking both to achieve simi-lar outcomes when bothmodels should be used byindividuals and organiza-tions to achieve differentoutcomes.

I am going to attempt todifferentiate e-learning,

in fact all learning, from traditional edu-cation.

E-learning can stand on its own as a powerfulmodel to help individuals acquire new skills, andadvance the skills they already have. E-learningwill transform training in a way that we’ve neverseen previously. In fact, it already has. “TheeKnowledge market will enjoy explosive growth,reaching $53.3 billion by 2003 from $9.4 billionin 1999”, according to Merrill Lynch.

But the skills acquisition that lends itself to the e-learning model leads to outcomes that are differ-ent from traditional higher education, and compa-nies have very different expectations on theirtraining outcomes than do universities on their

2

degree-based educational programs.

Education, as I define it, goes beyond the acquisi-tion of knowledge and skills found in e-learning.Education leads to a transformation in the indi-vidual’s analytical skills and their world view.Education literally changes the person’s filter forprocessing information. I no longer just take ininformation, I analyze it, process it, and formopinions that will impact my decisions based onthe education I have received. This type of educa-tion forms the foundation for all future learning.

Today e-learning hasnot proven itself capableof leading to these out-comes, and I questionwhether it shouldattempt to accomplishthese outcomes. This isthe role that traditionaleducation takes in oursociety, when we havethe time and immersionrequired to truly changethe way we view theworld and our analysisof it. Most of us havecompleted this processby the time we’re in ourearly twenties. We’veimmersed ourselves incollege, and whether weknow it or not, we’vecome out a different person.

While e-learning does not result in this type oftransformation, it is incredibly valuable in deliver-ing high-impact skills acquisition primarily due toits “just-in-time” delivery. According to MerrillLynch, the just-in-time nature of e-learning canlead to skills retention of up to 250% greater thanthat with classroom-based learning.

The Education MapThe education map displayed here identifies vari-ous modes of learning delivery and expected out-comes. Of course, within most models there are

exceptions to the rule, but for the vast majority ofcases, the mapping of learning delivery method toexpected outcomes holds true.

All learning begins with an individual’s funda-mental beliefs about the world in which he/shelives and operates. These fundamental beliefsform the basis from which all future experienceswill be processed, analyzed, and stored. All futurelearning will be filtered through this core set ofbeliefs obtained through experiences and educa-tion. Up to this point, traditional classroom-basededucation has formed the foundation for an indi-

vidual’s belief set that they will use to process allfuture learning. There are a number of reasonswhy this setting leads to these outcomes, and wecould spend years studying the theories that sup-port these claims, but let me highlight two that Ideem critically important; immersion and inter-action.

Most of the educational “Ah Ha’s”, as I call them,that occur in our lives and form the foundation ofour core beliefs happen when others challenge ourbeliefs. These interactions can occur between fac-ulty and student, or student-to-student, but theyoccur when our belief set is challenged. The fun-damental point is that people change our core

3

beliefs, not technology. And this process takestime. Why do most universities require that CEOsstay on campus for two weeks of intense leader-ship development? It’s because these highly-respected executive education providers want tochallenge CEOs’ beliefs about the world, businessand leadership. They want to challenge corebeliefs, knowing that all learning by that CEOwill be improved in the future. Educationproviders understand that they can’t accomplishthis through technology, but only through immer-sion and interaction. Christos Cotsakos, CEO ofE-trade, has this to say regarding his traditionalMBA experience, “My MBA taught me how tochange the rules of engagement, and then, ulti-mately, change the game.”

The closest online comparison to our traditionaleducation model is what is known as synchronouslearning, where an instructor is teaching onlinein real-time, and is available during that time toanswer questions. Synchronous learning involvescommunication with students and faculty with notime delay. Synchronous interaction can occurvia the telephone, chat, and Internet telephony.Synchronous learning is moving in the directionof achieving similar outcomes to traditional class-room-based education, but has yet to achievethese outcomes due to lack of the immersion andquality of interaction needed to truly challenge aperson’s core belief systems.

The remaining parts of the education map arecomprised of asynchronous learning and self-paced learning. Asynchronous learning involvesstudent-to-student and student-to-teacher com-munication that is “time-delayed”—separated byminutes, hours, even days. Correspondencecourses and e-mail are asynchronous forms of e-learning. These are particularly adept at helpingthe student hone current skills, or learn newones. Corporations are quite successful in employ-ing these models extensively to provide employeeswith “just-in-time” learning opportunities that aredirectly applicable to the job at hand.

At the base of the education map is the Internetitself—the new information medium for the com-ing age. At the core of the Internet is informa-

tion. And information makes up a key source oflearning capital. The Internet is to our societywhat the printing press was to the middle ages; acomplete information revolution. The Internetwill drive our learner-centric society into thefuture. But information and education, althoughnot mutually exclusive, do not share all of thesame properties.

I believe that the most interesting developmentsin education delivery are the hybrid offerings,combining the power of e-learning with theimmersion and interaction of the traditional class-room. Many of these programs have been devel-oped in our prestigious universities. They have

intense residency requirements where students areworking together on campus over a period ofweeks. The students then return to their jobs andlives. They continue in their studies and interac-tion utilizing the power of the Internet for com-munication, research and submission of assign-ments. These programs are fairly new, and wehave yet to see their results in developing the

4

analytical skills of more traditional delivery meth-ods, but all indications are that these programswill be successful.

The Measurement of Learning Vs.EducationIf we accept that education and learning are dif-ferent in the ways I have defined them previously,we can better develop models to measure theeffectiveness of each.

Learning and e-learning can be measured by theirability to meet certain objectives, either set by theorganization sponsoring the learning, the individ-ual, or learning providers themselves. Manyincome/outcome assessment models have been

defined to measure the effectiveness of these typesof programs. The fundamental approach is to basethe value of learning on its ability to teach theskills defined in the course objectives. Skills-basedlearning is easily measured through post-coursetesting that determines whether the student mas-tered the skills identified in the course.

The challenge occurs when we attempt to applythese same income/outcome assessment models toeducation programs such as undergraduate andgraduate degree programs. These education pro-grams deliver outcomes leading to problem solv-ing and analytical skills. If we attempt to use thissingular income/outcome assessment model, whatwe end up receiving on behalf of employees is nota paradigm shift to a new way of processing infor-mation, but a new or enhanced set of skills. Andfor many organizations paying the bill for their

employees’ degrees, this is an ample model formeasuring the effectiveness of these programs.

Unfortunately, if we apply this model as the defin-itive benchmark for educational offerings, we endup with degrees at a distance that are nothingmore than skills-based training programs, deliver-ing on the course objectives but fostering no para-digm shift for the employee enrolled in the pro-gram.

Patrick O’Boyle, a 39-year-old account manager forParabon Computation who finished the courseworkfor his bachelor’s degree at an online program had thisto say about the success of his experiences; “I can saywithout reservation that every course I took turnedinto dollars for me in business.”

So what should we measure? We should measurethat which we can measure.

The primary argument for measuring our educa-tional investment is the concept that educationas finite. All degrees represent a series of coursesintended to transfer a common body of knowl-edge. All accredited MBA programs, for example,have a common body of knowledge, beingfinance, marketing, accounting, and economics.Mastery of these topical areas is measurable.Companies will develop Education Return OnInvestment (EROI) tools around what is measura-ble on a quantitative level, and on a qualitativelevel.

The goals of the corporation and the universitydelivering an MBA are the same; to develop bet-ter managers with the skills to lead peoplethrough change. The most effective way for cor-porations to measure the return on education is toemploy an input/output assessment that coversthe quantitative and qualitative aspects of aneffective manager. Here are the basic tenets of theEROI model as it should formulate itself withincorporations:

1. Quantitative MeasurementsThe quantitative aspects of an MBA program (e.g.accounting, marketing, finance, economics, etc.)can be measured before a participant begins an

5

MBA program using a test that encompasses theseskills. The employee is tested before and after theMBA experience, and the change, or delta, repre-sents the effectiveness of the institution in deliv-ering these skills.

2. Qualitative SkillsThe qualitative aspects of the program are moredifficult to measure, but not impossible. Theseinclude management soft skills, leadership quali-ties, and an ability to analyze problems. Manycompanies could begin to measure these attributesusing current 360 feedback processes. This can beaccomplished through an assessment of the per-son’s management skills by his peers, subordinatesand bosses. This assessment should be done onthe front end of the business program, and again 6months after the individual has completed theprogram. The difference between these twoassessments gives a benchmark for the effective-ness of the program in delivering on these quali-ties.

In conclusion, stakeholders in the future of e-learning should continue to measure those aspectsof programs that can be measured, includingassessing the outcomes achieved. Today, these areprimarily skills outcomes, which are well suited forthe e-learning modes of delivery.

E-learning is not yet delivering on the immersionor interaction required to change a student’s para-digm for future learning, developing analytical andproblem solving skills. These attributes are bestdeveloped through more traditional classroom-based education, although a number of hybrid e-learning/classroom programs have evolved to tryand bridge the gap.

Jeff Creighton is the Chairman of iQ Enterprisesfor Telanetix, the premiere provider of managed lead generation for universities.