It seems to me that industry has to set targets for the completion of courses to satisfy accreditation (or mandatory compliance as Apostolos says). Once past the basics, many industrialists that I have dealt with in the past have been more interested in the outcomes of the learning, for example: What will the learner be able to do/ do better/ contribute more, etc., what benefits will the comapny gain?
In addition the cost/ benefit has to be justified by the provider/ HR department, to ensure more of the same (if that is what you want to encourage).
They (HR/ Provider) then need to persuade the learner (if the course is not to be compulsory) why they need to undertake the course: The immediate benefits: future prospects: relevance to current role, all apply here but there may also be an element of who else is taking/ has taken the course and the personal interests of the learner.
In this way I think that a 'Hunch' based analysis might be beneficial in influencing course design, subject matter presentation and may well be better placed at the end of a course rather than at the beginning to relate to uptake decisions / success rate and even completion rates. As long as the results are used. So much analysis is quickly reviewed and the filed away - never to be used again or not looked at in the first place.
How many of those who looked at Hunch would return to it again in a years time to performa a comparison. In addition it may be difficult to get learners to complete an in depth analysis. How many have answered all of Hunch's questions - how many got bored before they finished?
I think the questions I would like to ask is 'Who are the analytics for - the learning provider or the learner?' Which leads to 'Should the analytics be up-front or hidden?'
It is only possible to measure its effectiveness based on its practical application in the real working environment, where does not measure the specific result of knowledge adquired but if you measure the degree of achievement of individual goals and group obtained.
You may you be formed throughout life in different topics, not necesarily only of your current job.
The business training especially for new and old workers is usually provided in a simulation environment and only at the last moment can access on the real environment - to avoid mistakes.
Dolors: If, as you say, corporate training can only be measured by the results of applying the learning in the learner’s work, I would struggle to see the difference between corporate training and lifelong learning.
In my experience it is the knowledge that is gained that is assessed by corporate training and often courses are written that do not allow the learner to progress unless they prove their knowledge of the current study. In fact this is my argument against much of the current corporate training; that it only teaches knowledge, to be able to do something by rote, not the application of the knowledge or the development of skills. Of course there are courses that are skills based, but I do not know of many such online courses in industry. To write a course that can assess skills costs more than the general (off the shelf) courses that teach and assess the knowledge since the skills will be relevant to a particular company’s systems and the course applicable only to that company.
Francisco: I think that companies would be reluctant to allow trainees to use their real work during a course because of the risks involved. For example; in the Timber Industry (with which I am familiar) trainers often take on trainees from different companies but have to develop their own scenarios because of the secrecy many companies have about their processes.
In the UK, the term ‘Lifelong Learning’ is applied to any learning that is undertaken after leaving formal education. In theory online corporate training would fall into this category but, to me, it does not fit well due to the simplistic methods used (in order to assure assessment) and because it does not address the acquisition of the ability and skills needed to apply the knowledge. Lifelong learning is more about knowledge based upon experience (both one’s own and that of colleagues) and therefore bound up with skills and ability. The trick is, understanding how to capture this lifelong learning in a way that is meaningful to employers (current and future). I am hoping that learning analytics may supply some of the answers.
Indeed, one thing is the learning and other is the skills training. The first is permanent while the second is set to a particular work situation
And it is true, which the training have controls (tests) that measure the understanding of the basic concepts learned. However, I think this does not really measure learning but justifies the payment of fees of training.
But my experience is that even in traditional higher education you have students doing internships in companies whose work has to be kept secret (my students are from software engineering). All goes well not even involving lawyers!
Joining this with John Fritz post on students being the ones to act on their own data I think all makes even more sense: we learn our way with our personal and/or professional data and interests and we share just what we want.
Is this utopia? I do think in many cases we can achieve it.
I also tend to think that some training does require more than the time one puts into completing the eLearning module (or classroom session). I think that post-training interventions and assistance really do make it much more likely that the information gained in training can be put to use.
What will the learner be able to do/ do better/ contribute more, etc., what benefits will the comapny gain?
In the corporate world learning analytics has to tie to the return on investment for training - why would a commercial entity do it otherwise?