Feedback

E.learning Age, Sep 2005 by Gharebaghi, Fardad

To provide feedback to e.learning age, email the editor peterw@bizmedia.co.uk

Having read your piece in the July/August issue (Editor's comment: Dealing with problems), I felt compelled to add a few points and elicit your readers' views: I am not sure who e-learning practitioners are. Should they not be the same professionals who have always been involved in training and education?

E-learning is no different to any other type of learning, education or training. The reason why Instructor Led Training (ILT) has a much higher uptake rate and attendance is because it is a compelling event;

* Your manager signs off budget for you to attend a course.

* A training administrator sends you joining instructions reminding you to attend.

* At the start you register and if you don't your manager is called and told you are missing.

* At the end of the course you get a certificate and your manager receives an evaluation of how well or badly you did.

The reasons money for e-learning is not made readily available is there is no business case produced. E-learning has been a failure to date because of:

* Lack of value for money;

* Long development time;

* Not contextual or relevant to users;

* Difficult to deploy and difficult to access.

I have heard many people say: "We have bought licences for 1,000 titles for 5,000 staff and we have had 3 per cent uptake and 1 per cent completion rate." Compare this to a client of Redtray with 10,000 staff which ran one of its elearning courses within a three month period and obtained over 95 per cent utilisation and completion. Why? Because:

* It was compulsory to do the course;

* It was relevant;

* It was in context;

* It was sasv tn access.

Fardad Charebaghi

Group Development Director, Redtray.