September, 2001
E-Learning
A White Paper from IsoDynamic
What is E-Learning?
The American Society for Trainers and Development (ASTD) defines e-learning as
鈥渋nstructional content or learning experiences delivered or enabled by electronic technology鈥?.
Electronic technology encompasses everything from Computer-Based Training (CBT), to
compact disks (CDs), to Web-based applications. However, e-learning has increasingly come
to mean 鈥淲eb-enabled material deployed using the Net鈥?.1
E-learning can be delivered in two ways: synchronously and asynchronously. Synchronous
e-learning takes place 鈥渓ive鈥?--a virtual classroom of sorts. It may feature real-time, Web-
based videoconferencing, audio conferencing with presentation material, and on-line chat.
Some people refer to synchronous e-learning as 鈥淒istance Learning鈥?2. In contrast,
asynchronous e-learning may take place any time, and is self paced. Because of its lower
cost of development, reusable components, and convenience to the learner, asynchronous e-
learning鈥攕ometimes called 鈥淒istributed Learning鈥濃?攊s receiving more attention in the e-
learning industry today.
Revolution in the Making
Looking ahead, the magnitude of e-learning鈥檚 impact on the world seems difficult to
overestimate. The ubiquitous, 鈥渁lways-on鈥? characteristics of the Internet mean that learners
will be able to acquire knowledge anywhere, anytime. This comes at a time when conducting
business, as never before, demands the ability to change rapidly, and, consequently, a well-
informed workforce.
The ability to parse information into smaller and smaller chunks--and 鈥渢ag鈥? those 鈥渓earning
content objects鈥? with classification information鈥攚ill produce two important results:
鈥? Increased delivery of information 鈥渏ust in time鈥濃?攐n the job, when it is needed, even to
mobile devices
鈥? Reuse of learning material, within enterprises and in the public domain
1
鈥淒oes E-Learning Make the Grade?鈥?, CIO Magazine, January 15, 2001
2
SCORM, Version 1.1, Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative
All of this will drive continuously lower the costs to produce and deliver instructional material .
. . benefiting commerce, government, and education, in developed and developing countries.
The individual worker or student will be increasingly empowered to take responsibility for
acquiring the knowledge and skills he or she deems necessary.
E-learning will also stimulate changes in the measurement of both learning and performance.
鈥淐lock hour鈥? measurements, typified by class time or number of courses taken, will gradually
be replaced by more 鈥渙utcome鈥? measurements, requiring the demonstration of skills.
E-Learning Technology
Notable advancements in e-learning technology in the last five years have included the
introduction of learning management systems and the development of standards promoting
鈥渟harable learning content objects鈥?, or 鈥渓earning objects鈥?.
Learning Management Systems
The learning management system (LMS) is 鈥渢he operating system鈥? for e-learning in the
enterprise. At a minimum, it automates the administration of training events: handling
course schedules and registrations; delivering learning content; facilitating communication
among learners and between learners and instructors; and tracking and reporting on
learners鈥? progress and test scores. It is designed to handle courses from multiple
providers.
There are dozens of companies offering server-based LMSs. Examples of 鈥減ure play鈥?
providers (companies which do not develop content) are Saba, Blackboard, and
Click2Learn. Companies providing content, in addition to their own LMS, include
DigitalThink and SmartForce. In addition to licensing software and servers, many LMS
vendors also operate as application service providers (ASPs). While the perfect LMS is
still evolving, W.R. Hambrecht & Company states that, in order to be successful, vendors
must meet the market demand for functionality, scalability, interoperability, customizability,
and flexibility.
Systems are being developed which manage the actual content associated with e-
learning. Specifically, they deliver and track the learning objects comprising courses or
growing databases of 鈥渏ust-in-time鈥? learning material. Some LMSs are being enhanced
with 鈥渓earning content management system鈥? (LCMS) functionality. In other cases, the
functionality is being offered on a dedicated server (Centra is a company offering such a
product). All providers of LCMS functionality are developing compliance with the evolving
content object standards, like AICC and SCORM (see below).
The next generation of LMSs is likely to contain some content assembly and authoring
tools. 3 鈥淎daptive learning鈥? and 鈥渋ntelligent tutoring鈥? functionality is also being gradually
incorporated.4 Adaptive learning dynamically adjusts instructional content and tests
according to the learner鈥檚 proficiency. Still emerging, intelligent tutoring technology uses
3
eLearning: 2001 Outlook for the Learning Management System Market, www.wrhambrecht.com, W.R.
Hambrecht, April 18, 2001.
4
SCORM, Version 1.1, Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative
http://www.isodynamic.com/ Page 2 of 12
the science of human cognition to develop complex models and rules-based systems
intended to provide more in-depth instruction to learners, including answering the learner鈥檚
questions.
Interfaces from LMSs to human resource information systems (HRIS) are enabling more
extensive evaluation and planning regarding employee learning and productivity. Tie-ins
to enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, like those from PeopleSoft and SAP, and
customer resource management (CRM) systems, like Siebel, are also being developed.
In addition, the future will see new interfaces with wireless and e-commerce applications.
Standards
Several emerging standards are expected to dramatically advance the e-learning industry.
Central to these standards are the aforementioned learning objects (called 鈥淎ssignable
Units鈥? or 鈥渓essons鈥? within AICC鈥檚 model, and 鈥淪harable Content Objects鈥? within SCORM鈥檚
model). The smallest units of learning content tracked by LMSs or LCMSs, learning
objects are labeled in a standardized way.
The combined effect of the evolving e-learning standards will enable:
鈥? Learning objects to be easily reused, and handled interchangeably by various
LMSs
鈥? The accessibility of learning objects developed by any authoring tool
鈥? Learning objects to be stored and easily accessed within databases
鈥? The rapid construction of courses through easy sequencing of content
鈥? New, more granular learner assessment models
Notable standards are as follows:
鈥? SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model)
SCORM is the standard that has emerged with the most momentum, and many
vendors are adopting it. Its specifications are offered by the U.S. Government鈥檚
Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative, an organization formed jointly in
1997 by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and
the Department of Defense. SCORM describes the ways in which learning objects
relate to each other, and is intended to foster the portability of those objects from
one LMS to another. It has included the best of the AICC and IMS specifications
in its structure; and is being substantially adopted by the IEEE LTSC (see below). 5
鈥? IMS (Instructional Management System Global Learning Consortium
Initiated by Educom and headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts, the IMS
Consortium has been developing open specifications for locating and using
learning content, tracking and reporting learner progress, and exchanging records
between LMSs. Its members are from educational, commercial, and government
5
Getting Up to Speed on E-Learning, Tom Werner, Brandon-Hall.com Publishers, 2001.
http://www.isodynamic.com/ Page 3 of 12
organizations worldwide.6 鈥淢etadata tagging鈥濃?攈ow content is identified and
tagged鈥攊s the cornerstone of the IMS鈥檚 work.
鈥? AICC (Aviation Industry Computer-Based Training Committee)
The AICC is an association of technology-based training professionals chartered
over a decade ago with developing guidelines for the aviation industry. Because
of its early leadership in e-learning, its guidelines have been adopted by makers of
e-learning products serving many industries. Covering nine areas, these
guidelines focus on how LMSs interface with learning objects and courses.
鈥? IEEE LTSC (Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineering鈥檚 Learning
Technology Standards Committee)
Many believe the IEEE LTSC will have the final say as it endorses specific e-
learning industry standards, and SCORM is one set of specifications receiving
significant attention.7 IEEE LTSC鈥檚 working groups cover topics like 鈥渓earning
object metadata鈥? (tagging information used to describe data), student profiles,
course sequencing, computer-managed instruction, competency definitions,
localization, and content packaging.鈥?8 In 2000, it initiated the move of this work to
the full International Standards Organization (ISO) Joint Technical Committee 1
(JTC1) Subcommittee 36 (SC36) on Learning Technology, for the highest level of
global standards accreditation.
鈥? XML (eXtensible Mark-up Language)
XML is a metadata (data tagging) standard developed by the World Wide Web
Consortium (WC3). Platform independent, it is becoming the foundation for
communication among Web-based applications. Many of the e-learning
specifications mentioned above build on XML.
Advantages Over Traditional Classroom Instruction
Many leading-edge companies, like CISCO and IBM, as well as numerous government
agencies, are developing in-depth, enterprise-wide e-learning programs. This does not mean
they see no place for 鈥渇ace-to-face鈥?, group learning experiences. Increasingly, however, such
group experiences are reserved for participants who have mastered basic information
beforehand through e-learning.9
6
All About Learning Technology Standards, www.learnativity.com; re-published from article 鈥淓verything
You Ever Wanted to Know About Learning Standards But Were Afraid to Ask鈥?, by Wayne Hodgins with
Marcia Conner, LINE Zine, Fall, 2000.
7
Getting Up to Speed on E-Learning, Tom Werner, Brandon-Hall.com Publishers, 2001.
8
All About Learning Technology Standards, www.learnativity.com; re-published from article 鈥淓verything
You Ever Wanted to Know About Learning Standards But Were Afraid to Ask鈥?, by Wayne Hodgins with
Marcia Conner, LINE Zine, Fall, 2000.
9
Getting Up to Speed on E-Learning, Tom Werner, Brandon-Hall.com Publishers, 2001.
http://www.isodynamic.com/ Page 4 of 12
Why is e-learning increasingly considered the medium of choice for delivering instructional
material? Evidence suggests that it contributes to superior retention of knowledge; and is
more quickly, conveniently, and economically delivered.
Better Retention
According to the Gartner Group, the retention of e-learning is twice as high as that of
traditional classroom instruction, at half the cost.10 W.R. Hambrecht & Company reports:
鈥淲hereas the average content retention rate for an instructor-led class is only 58%, the
more intensive e-Learning experience enhances the retention rate by 25% to 60%.鈥? IBM,
after rolling out an e-learning program for managers, found that 鈥減articipants learned
nearly five times more material without increasing time spent training.鈥?11
Several factors account for these surprising results:
鈥? Learning at the learner鈥檚 pace
In most learning environments, the speed with which individuals can progress
through instruction varies by factors of three to seven.12 Since e-learners are able
to proceed through courses at their own pace, they are apt to learn the material
more thoroughly, or less likely to become bored.
鈥? More interactivity with the learner
The interactivity typical of e-learning tends to captivate the learner. In the
traditional classroom environment, a student asks about .1 questions per hour.13
Studies show that students in e-learning environments can interact with
courseware via question and answer up to 120 times per hour.
鈥? Comprehension enhanced by graphic representation
According to the American Society for Trainers and Development (ASTD),
鈥渘umerous studies have shown that workers learn faster with multimedia content;
they more accurately recall what they learned over a longer period of time; and
they are better able to transfer what they learned to actual performance.鈥?14
鈥? Greater relevance
The high retention of small modules of e-learning information provided 鈥渏ust in
time鈥? in support of on-the-job activity is attributed its perceived higher relevance
and 鈥渄igestibility鈥?, as compared to lengthier, traditional, 鈥渏ust-in-case鈥? training. The
Research Institute of America found that, over time, the retention of knowledge
10
鈥淢arket Trends and E-Learning鈥? white paper, MindLever.com, 2000.
11
Getting Up to Speed on E-Learning, Tom Werner, Brandon-Hall.com Publishers, 2001.
12
SCORM, Version 1.1, Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative, quoting M. Gettinger (1984) 鈥淚ndividual
Differences in Time Needed for Learning鈥?, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 19
13
SCORM, Version 1.1, Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative, quoting A. Graesser & N. Person (1994),
鈥淨uestion Asking During Tutoring鈥?, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31.
14
A Vision of E-Learning for America鈥檚 Workforce, American Society for Trainers and Development
(ASTD), www.astd.org, 2000.
http://www.isodynamic.com/ Page 5 of 12
from classroom lectures dissipates, with only 15% of such knowledge being
retained three weeks after the course.15
Learner Efficiency and Convenience
E-learning is generally absorbed in less time than the same instructional material
delivered in the classroom. By enabling learners to navigate through material at
their own pace, e-learning minimizes the time that knowledgeable learners must
spend in such training activity. And, for all learners, graphical presentation of
material leads to faster comprehension. These two factors help to explain the
results of several studies, cited below, showing significant time saved per course:
鈥? Brandon-Hall, an e-learning market research company, reported that e-
learning typically requires from 40% to 60% less employee time than the
same material delivered in a traditional classroom setting.16
鈥? The Advance Distributed Learning Initiative cited two studies indicating
that, on average, 鈥渞educed time to achieve given instructional objectives
(30%)鈥攐r increased student skills and knowledge (30%)鈥攄epending on
whether achievement or time was held constant.鈥?17
In practice, more rapid learning translates to millions of dollars saved for a large
organization. For instance, reducing by 30% the time to train just 40% of all
Department of Defense (DoD) students in specialized skills training鈥攚hich
excludes other categories such as recruit training, pilot training, unit training, and
field exercises鈥攃ould potentially save the DoD over $500 million annually.18
E-learning is more convenient. Unlike traditional classroom training, which is
sometimes scheduled at a time inconvenient to the learner, in a location requiring
travel, e-learning offers the learner more flexibility with respect to time and place.
Faster Roll-Out
Due to the ubiquity of the Internet and scalability of servers, e-learning can be
delivered immediately to thousands of learners worldwide. 鈥淭raining that used to
take six to nine months will be compressed to just two to three weeks,鈥? predicted
Fortune Magazine, 鈥渁ssuring faster time-to-market with products, and greater
productivity.鈥?19 Technology giant CISCO reported that e-learning programs
15
Special E-Learning Section, Forbes, Summer, 2000.
16
Return on Investment and Multimedia Training, Brandon-Hall, 1995.
17
SCORM, Version 1.1, Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative, quoting J.D. Fletcher (2001), 鈥淓vidence
for Learning from Technology-Assisted Instruction鈥?; H.F. O鈥橬eil Jr. and R. Perez, 鈥淭echnology Applications
in Education: A Learning View鈥?, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18
SCORM, Version 1.1, Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative, quoting J.D. Fletcher (2001), 鈥淓vidence
for Learning from Technology-Assisted Instruction鈥?; H.F. O鈥橬eil Jr. and R. Perez, 鈥淭echnology Applications
in Education: A Learning View鈥?, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19
A Vision of E-Learning for America鈥檚 Workforce, American Society for Trainers and Development
(ASTD), referencing 鈥淓-Learning: Leading Strategies for Executive Education and Corporate Training鈥?,
Fortune Magazine, 2000.
http://www.isodynamic.com/ Page 6 of 12
produced a savings of $1 million in manufacturing costs in a single quarter, due to
improved processes, as well as an 鈥?80% increase in speed-to-competence.鈥?20
Traditional classroom training does not always guarantee that the same
information or quality of instruction is provided to all students. Training Magazine
reported 50% to 60% improved consistency using some form of e-learning.
Furthermore, the ease of updating e-learning material, as compared to classroom
instructional material, should be discounted.
The new-generation LMSs offer companies the opportunity to disseminate product
and other training information not only to employees, but also to customers,
suppliers, and other business partners. For example, Eastman Software, a
subsidiary of Kodak, found that it could not only improve its training of distributors,
but more accurately gauge their product knowledge.21
Costs Savings to Enterprise
Undisputed are the dramatic cost savings to both industrial and governmental
enterprises from adopting e-learning. Some examples:
鈥? Training Magazine: A study across industries found that corporations saved
50% to 70% of their overall training cost by replacing traditional training
with on-line delivery.22 W.R. Hambrecht & Company reported similar
savings.23
鈥? Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative: Enterprises鈥? deployment of LMSs,
and worldwide adoption of standards like SCORM, which promote the use
of sharable content objects, will compound savings already realized from e-
learning efficiencies. Content object sharing is expected to reduce training
development costs by 50% to 80%.24
鈥? Brandon-Hall: A study of a large company over a three-year period
determined that the cost to develop and deliver a course in 鈥渢echnology鈥?
mode was about half that of the 鈥渓ecture/lab鈥? mode.25
鈥? IBM: One year after launching comprehensive, on-line management
training in 1999, IBM reported that it was able to deliver five times the
training at one-third the cost. Estimated cost savings was $200 million. 26
鈥? Oracle: The rapid adoption of e-learning strategies enabled Oracle to cut
internal learning costs by 40%, while increasing net student enrollments by
20
A Vision of E-Learning for America鈥檚 Workforce, American Society for Trainers and Development
(ASTD), www.astd.org, 2000.
21
Special E-Learning Section, Forbes, Summer, 2000.
22
Special E-Learning Section, Forbes, referencing Training Magazine, March, 2000.
23
Special E-Learning Section, Forbes, Summer, 2000, referencing 鈥淐orporate E-Learning: Exploring a New
Frontier,鈥? by W.R. Hambrecht & Company, March, 2000.
24
SCORM, Version 1.1, Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative
25
Return on Investment and Multimedia Training, Brandon-Hall, 1995.
26
Getting Up to Speed on E-Learning, Tom Werner, Brandon-Hall.com Publishers, 2001.
http://www.isodynamic.com/ Page 7 of 12
36%; and to 鈥渃ompress the knowledge supply chain鈥?, building and
deploying new courses in weeks instead of months.27
鈥? Cisco: To keep its business 鈥渞unning fast鈥?, the company is moving 100% of
its courses on line. On-line training is considered essential to its
acquisition strategy, which resulted in the purchase and integration of 50
new companies in two years.28
Although a higher initial investment is usually required to implement e-learning
across the enterprise, this investment is quickly offset by tremendous savings in
the delivery of the material developed. While traditional classroom training is
associated with 20-to-1 student-teacher ratios, only one e-learning course can be
used to train thousands of students. The decreasing cost of network bandwidth
and computers, as well as the growing libraries of high-quality, off-the-shelf
content, add to this savings.
Besides more efficient delivery, the ASTD attributes cost savings largely to
employee time saved.29 Another key source of savings is travel, since training is
no longer offsite. In 2000, two-thirds of the $66 billion total corporate training
budgets were devoted to employee travel.30
Exploding E-Learning Market
Business Week proclaimed, 鈥淲eb training is exploding.鈥?31 Below are some data describing
the phenomenal growth of the e-learning market:
鈥? U.S. training and education market
W.R. Hambrecht: In 2000, $772 billion (9% of GNP) was spent on training and
education. Of that, corporate training constituted $66 billion (8.5% of total
spending), and continuing education, $12 billion (1.5% of total spending).32
ASTD: The percentage of organizations (outside the education sector) using the
Internet for training grew from 3% in 1996 to 38% in 1999. For intranets, the
growth rate was higher: from 3.5% to nearly 40%.33
U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray: In 2005, total spending for e-learning could exceed
$46 billion.34
27
鈥淭he E-Learning Curve鈥?, Profit Magazine, May, 2001.
28
Special E-Learning Section, Forbes, Summer, 2000.
29
A Vision of E-Learning for America鈥檚 Workforce, American Society for Trainers and Development
(ASTD), referencing Corporate E-Learning: Exploring a New Frontier, W.R. Hambrecht & Company, 2000.
30
Special E-Learning Section, Forbes, Summer, 2000, referencing 鈥淐orporate E-Learning: Exploring a New
Frontier,鈥? by W.R. Hambrecht & Company, March, 2000.
31
鈥淲eb Training Explodes鈥?, Business Week On-line, May 22, 2000.
32
Special E-Learning Section, Forbes, Summer, 2000, referencing 鈥淐orporate E-Learning: Exploring a New
Frontier,鈥? by W.R. Hambrecht & Company, March, 2000.
33
A Vision of E-Learning for America鈥檚 Workforce, American Society for Trainers and Development
(ASTD), referencing ASTD鈥檚 鈥淪tate of the Industry鈥? Report, 2001.
http://www.isodynamic.com/ Page 8 of 12
鈥? Enterprise e-learning market
IDC and W.R. Hambrecht: In 1999, $550 million was spent by corporations. Their
total expenditure is expected to grow to $7.1 billion in 2002, and $11.4 billion in
2003鈥攔epresenting a compound annual growth rate of 98%.35 Electronically
delivered training will constitute about 30.1% of all corporate training in 2001, up
from 8.5% in 1998.36
Merrill Lynch: Expenditures by corporations in 2001 are forecasted at $1.2 billion,
to grow to $7 billion by 2003.37
Forbes: 鈥淭he potential for online learning could top $10 billion a year.鈥?38
CIO Magazine: E-learning will constitute at least half the projected $16.9 billion
expenditure for business skills training by 2004, with a very high portion of that
outsourced (annual growth rate of 13%).39
W.R. Hambrecht: Sixty percent of corporations will have an LMS deployed by
2003. The average implementation size tripled in three years, reaching 116,000
learners in 2000.40
Forbes: In 1988, there were approximately 400 corporate universities. These grew
to 1,600 by mid-2000. In addition to employees, they now deliver information to
customers, suppliers, and other partners鈥攚ith many having become profit
centers.41
Mindlever.com (now Centra): Despite the availability of high-quality, third-party
content from a wide range of sources, corporate purchasing of this 鈥渙ff-the-shelf鈥?
content constitutes only 53% of total spending for e-learning content. The reason
for the high level of spending on custom content--47%--is that the latter is
鈥渋mmediate, important, and valuable to [companies]鈥?.42
鈥? Higher education market
34
U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, 2001.
35
鈥淭he E-Learning Curve鈥?, Profit Magazine, May, 2001, referencing Information Week, quoting IDC and
W.R. Hambrecht.
36
鈥淢arket Trends and E-Learning鈥?, a white paper by Mindlever.com. 2000, referencing IDC.
37
A Vision of E-Learning for America鈥檚 Workforce, American Society for Trainers and Development
(ASTD), referencing Moe, Michael, and Henry Blodgett, The Knowledge Web, Merrill Lynch & Co., Global
Securities Research & Economics Group, 2000.
38
鈥淢aster of the Knowledge Universe, Forbes, Sept. 10, 2001.
39
CIO Magazine, January, 2001, referencing Cushing Anderson, Program Manager, Learning Services
Research, IDC
40
April 18, 2001 E-Learning Newsletter, W.R. Hambrecht, referencing the Gartner Group
41
Special E-Learning Section, Forbes, Summer, 2000.
42
鈥淢arket Trends and E-Learning鈥?, a white paper by Mindlever.com. 2000.
http://www.isodynamic.com/ Page 9 of 12
ASTD: Eighty-four percent of two- and four-year colleges expect to offer distance
learning courses in 2002. In 1998, only 58% of colleges reported offering these
courses.43
Credit Suisse First Boston: The percentage of adults enrolled in distance
education is expected to triple from just 5% in 1998 to 15% in 2002.44
Better Learning
There is ample evidence that people learn best when they are engaged--by content which is
sensorially appealing; personalized (i.e., adjusted for the learner and offering opportunities to
make input); and novel, humorous, or relevant.
ADL reports the results of multiple studies comparing e-learning infused with varying amounts
45
of engaging content to traditional classroom instruction. As the graph below shows, 233
comparisons of basic computer-based instruction (containing little or no graphical content)
indicated an average improvement over classroom instruction of .39 standard deviations.
Adding multimedia capabilities (e.g., pictures, sound, and animation) added effectiveness,
raising the improvement to .50 standard deviations. Intelligent tutoring systems intended to
more directly emulate one teacher interacting with one student, and allowing either the
student or computer to ask questions, increased improvement to .84 standard deviations--
roughly equivalent to moving a student in the 50th percentile (i.e., in the middle of the 鈥渂ell
curve鈥?) to the 65th percentile. More advanced intelligent tutoring systems, featuring more
adaptive learning, yielded improvements averaging about 1.05 standard deviations. This
improvement enables a student in the 50th percentile to move to the 75th percentile (half-way
43
"A Vision of E-Learning for America's Workforce", report of Commission on Technology & Adult Learning,
ASTD, June, 2001, referencing U.S. Department of Education.
44
"A Vision of E-Learning for America's Workforce", report of Commission on Technology & Adult Learning,
ASTD, June, 2001, referencing "Testimony to Web-Based Education Commission" by Gregory Capelli,
Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., September 15, 2000.
45
SCORM, Version 1.1, Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative
http://www.isodynamic.com/ Page 10 of 12
down the right slope of the bell curve). No e-learning module studied has yet produced the
2.0 standard deviation improvement which has been attained by some professionally tutored
individuals; but the trends are promising.
Sensory Appeal
Specific examples of content intended to appeal to multiple senses are:
鈥? Audio modules
鈥? Graphics
鈥? Animation
鈥? Video modules
Personalized Learning
Personalized learning may involve the application of 鈥渉igh technology鈥? or 鈥渉igh touch鈥? (i.e.,
lots of opportunity for human interaction):
Learner-Driven Learning
鈥? Learner-determined navigational path through material
鈥? Content adjusted for learner鈥檚 bandwidth
鈥? Instructional material or tests adjusted for learner鈥檚 familiarity with material
鈥? Ample questions directed to learner
鈥? Learner may pose questions to program, or to designated human 鈥渟ubject
matter expert鈥? (by telephone, e-mail, or on-line chat), and receive timely
response
鈥? Search capability
鈥? Learner may communicate with other classmates (by telephone, e-mail, or on-
line bulletin boards or chat)
鈥? Help desk support for technical questions
鈥? Privacy, in cases where learner not required to take or pass a course鈥擨BM
calls it 鈥渟afety鈥? (assurance that learner will not be assessed or tracked)46鈥攖o
encourage employees or partners to try new learning offerings
鈥? Learner given meaningful opportunity to evaluate learning module
Meaningful Measurement of Learner Progress
鈥? Ample questions directed to learner throughout the course
鈥? Measurement of 鈥渓earning outcomes鈥?, i.e., measurement of learner鈥檚
application of knowledge gained鈥攏ot rote testing of instructional material
memorized
Novel, Humorous, or Relevant Content
Examples include:
鈥? Games
46
Getting Up to Speed on E-Learning, Tom Werner, Brandon-Hall.com Publishers, 2001.
http://www.isodynamic.com/ Page 11 of 12
鈥? Role playing
鈥? Simulations
鈥? Material delivered 鈥渏ust in time鈥? for use on the job
鈥? Rewards for correct answers to questions
鈥? In cases of incorrect answers, provision of correct answers, with appropriate
explanation
鈥? Recognition for completion of course
About IsoDynamic
Based in Silver Spring, Maryland, IsoDynamic is a premier developer of custom e-learning
content, Web sites and Web-based e-business applications, and provider of branding services.
Since 1997, IsoDynamic has delivered over 100 Web- and CD ROM-based educational and
promotional packages for customers like Sprint, American Farmland Trust, and bigchalk鈩?, the
Education Network.
Principal Office:
IsoDynamic
11504 Nairn Farmhouse Ct.
Silver Spring, MD 20902-2925
Phone: 301.649.5655
Fax: 240.331.4895
Web: www.IsoDynamic.com
E-mail: Info@IsoDynamic.com
http://www.isodynamic.com/ Page 12 of 12
|