Literature Review of Evidence on e-Learning in the Workplace - Essay - United Kingdom Literature - David Lain, Essays (high school) of English Literature

Download Literature Review of Evidence on e-Learning in the Workplace - Essay - United Kingdom Literature - David Lain and more Essays (high school) English Literature in PDF only on Docsity!

Literature Review of

Evidence on e-Learning

in the Workplace

David Lain

Jane Aston

Published by:

INSTITUTE FOR EMPLOYMENT STUDIES

Mantell Building Falmer Brighton BN1 9RF UK

Tel. + 44 (0) 1273 686751 Fax + 44 (0) 1273 690430

http://www.employment-studies.co.uk

Copyright © 2004 Institute for Employment Studies

No part of this publication may be reproduced or used in any form by any means—graphic, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording, taping or information storage or retrieval systems—without prior permission in writing from the Institute for Employment Studies.

The Institute for Employment Studies

The Institute for Employment Studies is an independent, apolitical, international centre of research and consultancy in human resource issues. It works closely with employers in the manufacturing, service and public sectors, government departments, agencies, and professional and employee bodies. For over 35 years the Institute has been a focus of knowledge and practical experience in employment and training policy, the operation of labour markets and human resource planning and development. IES is a not-for-profit organisation which has over 60 multidisciplinary staff and international associates. IES expertise is available to all organisations through research, consultancy, publications and the Internet.

IES aims to help bring about sustainable improvements in employment policy and human resource management. IES achieves this by increasing the understanding and improving the practice of key decision makers in policy bodies and employing organisations.

iv

Literature Review of Evidence on e-Learning in the Workplace 1

1. Introduction and Methodology

1.1 Purpose of this study

Although there has been much research on e-learning in the educational context, far less has been written about e-learning in the workplace (Macpherson, 2003). There is, however, a need to draw together what research has been done on e-learning in the workplace to inform future research. This is the purpose of this literature review.

This literature review covers the following areas, in accordance with the brief provided to the Institute for Employment Studies:

z The prevalence of e-learning in companies — how common is it for e-learning to be used in the workplace? Are there differences in usage by occupational group, sector, and size of company? What kinds of e-learning are used? (Chapter 2). z The demand for e-learning — how much demand is there for e-learning products and services amongst employers? (Chapter 3). z The effectiveness and impact of e-learning — what are the expected benefits of e-learning? How effective is e-learning in relation to: (1) engendering a positive response from the trainee; (2) resulting in learning on the part of the trainee; (3) changing the behaviour of the trainee; and (4) having a positive impact on the organisation (Chapter 4).

1.2 e-learning: A definition

Before we are able to make an assessment in the above three areas, we need to know what we mean by the term ‘e-learning’. ‘e’, in regards to e-learning, obviously stands for electronic. Electronic learning can take many forms, and consequently there has been some debate about what can legitimately be covered under such a term. A wider discussion on the use of the term e-learning can be found in Pollard and Hillage (2001), however, it is enough here to state that the term e-learning used in this report will be:

Literature Review of Evidence on e-Learning in the Workplace 3

z Econlit z Psychinfo.

Abstracts — and where available for downloading articles — were read and rejected, or included according to the above criteria. Articles were ordered where appropriate. Bibliographies were investigated for possible further research for inclusion. Websites of organisations and departments having conducted research in the field were searched. These included:

z EPIC, Brandon-Hall, the Masie Centre, elearning network, LSC, TUC, LSDA, CourseShare.com, learningcircuits, ASTD, e- learningcentre.co.uk.

Keith Shaw of Keith Shaw Associates was contacted for advice, as was Dr M Kerrin, formerly of IES.

In addition, a limited amount of speculative searching was done using the Google search engine, in addition to following up leads and investigating key authors’ work in the area.

The report follows the structure set out, above, in Section 1.1.

4 Institute for Employment Studies

2. The Use of e-Learning in Workplaces

In this chapter, we examine the use of e-learning in the UK, and in the wider world for the purposes of context. This is executed in the following way:

z Section 2.1 examines evidence on the prevalence of e-learning in the UK and wider world. z Section 2.2 is concerned with evidence on differences in the use of e-learning by occupational group. z Section 2.3 extends the analysis to differences in the use of e- learning by company size. z Section 2.4 considers corresponding differences by industrial sector. z Section 2.5 investigates evidence on the different kinds of e- learning provided. z Section 2.6 provides a conclusion to the chapter.

2.1 The prevalence of e-learning in workplaces

2.1.1 In the UK

There have been a few surveys which have sought to gauge the prevalence of e-learning in the UK. One of the earlier studies by the now defunct company Xebec McGraw Hill in 2001, presented data that 87 per cent of companies had an intranet, and 28 per cent of these companies use it to deliver training — in other words, 24 per cent of the total delivered training in this fashion (Beamish et al. , 2002, 105). This was projected to rise to 54 per cent of all companies with an intranet within three years. This, it should be noted, does not include other forms of e-learning other than the use of intranets (for example CD-ROMs ). Furthermore, as we will discuss below, there are reasons for being sceptical of many of the forecasts of e-learning growth.

Another study (Young, 2002, 54), commissioned by the e-learning provider Skillsoft, took the form of a telephone survey of 204 ‘senior level executives’, aimed at creating a ‘major benchmarking study of e-learning in UK organisations’. This study found that 46

6 Institute for Employment Studies

2003,) would, therefore, not be adequately represented. Put simply, it is very difficult to draw precise conclusions about the prevalence of e-learning across employer organisations in the UK from the survey data available — although the CIPD survey arguably gives a closer approximation.

In the above studies, we have considered mainly whether companies have introduced e-learning. Another way of considering the prevalence of e-learning is in terms of individuals who receive training in this manner. There is a lack of published research from this perspective, however, our own analysis of the Labour Force Survey has yielded some interesting results which will be presented alongside the literature in this chapter.

The Labour Force Survey asks individuals (not doing an NVQ) who have received education or training related to their job in the last four weeks, how this training was delivered. One possible response was via the ‘Use [of] information from the Internet and CD- ROMs’ , a measure encompassing much of that covered by e- learning (intranets are, for example, excluded). Individuals were able to specify more than one way in which they had received training — for example, a respondent could answer that they have received training via seminars or workshops and via e-learning, as defined here. Furthermore, the Labour Force Survey is a statistically reliable source of data, in the sense of sampling etc.

Table 2.1 gives the numbers and proportions of individuals who have received training in the last four weeks, broken down by whether they received on-the-job training only, training that included e-learning, or ‘off-the-job’ training, excluding e-learning.

As we see from Table 2.1, 12 per cent received some form of e- learning, defined as above, as part of their training. The proportions receiving ‘on-the-job training only’ or ‘off-the-job but no e-learning’ are roughly equal (with 43 and 45 per cent respectively). It is to be expected that measuring the prevalence of e-learning in this way would yield lower proportions than surveys which look at employers offering at least some e-learning. However, the figures do strongly suggest that the use of e- learning as a training tool may be lower than envisaged by the

Table 2.1: Whether training in the last four weeks included e-learning

N % On the Job Training only 1,033,323 42. Training included e-learning 294,423 12. Training did not include e-learning 1,092,375 45. Total 2,420,121 100

Note: Includes only those who had some form of training in the four weeks preceding the survey, excluding those working towards an NVQ. e-learning defined here as the use of information from the Internet and/or CD-ROM

Source: Labour Force Survey, Spring to Summer 2003

Literature Review of Evidence on e-Learning in the Workplace 7

CIPD (2002 and 2003) even accounting for differences in the definition of e-learning.

2.1.2 In an international context

There is more published on the prevalence of e-learning outside the UK, particularly in the USA, but also in the rest of Europe. Such reports also indicate a rapid expansion of e-learning and a relatively high proportion of companies utilising these training and learning methods. From an international perspective, the UK would seem to lead in Europe in relation to e-learning. According to research by Enterprise Island, the Irish Government’s trade and technology body, the UK represents 50 per cent of the £224m spent on e-learning projects by European companies. IDC has published similar figures for the UK (Clark, 2003a, 32). By way of further comparison, the literature asserts that Europe is less advanced in terms of the prevalence of e-learning than the USA (Martin et al. , 2003).

As with research relating to the UK, we have acquired survey data on the prevalence of e-learning in the USA. One of the more recent surveys (IOMA, 2003b, December 2003) found that 43 per cent of respondent-employers have adopted e-learning. Unfortunately, the sample size was only 131 ‘training professionals’, which seriously weakens its reliability. Other surveys, as a consequence of their research design, dramatically over-represent companies with e-learning (Schafter, 2001; Bonk, 2002).

There is more literature on the size of the e-learning market, an indicator of prevalence, and this is covered in Chapter 3.

2.2 Differences by occupation

What differences, if any, are there by occupational group in terms of who gets e-learning? Furthermore, which groups are likely to spend a substantial amount of their training time e-learning? The first question regarding who actually gets any e-learning as part of training is investigated in our analysis of the Labour Force Survey presented in Table 2.2. Once again, the definition of e-learning is narrower than that adopted in the rest of the report, as it does not include the Internet and CD-ROMs. The table shows the proportions of respondents who, having obtained work-training in four weeks prior to the survey, received at least some of this via e-learning. Nisar (2002), predicted that highly skilled workers would be more likely than their less skilled counterparts to receive e-learning because they would be less likely to benefit. This view is partially confirmed by the data in Table 2.2 —professionals and managers, and senior officials were the most likely to obtain e-learning as part of their training during the four week period (17 and 16 per cent respectively, did so). The groups least likely to have had

Literature Review of Evidence on e-Learning in the Workplace 9

e-learning used, and the fact that employers rather than employees were answering^1. For these reasons, it is difficult to draw the implied conclusion that managers and senior officials are more likely to use e-learning, but for a shorter duration.

At the other extreme of the hierarchy, only a fifth of respondents said that manual workers spent at least a tenth of their time in e- learning in their company.

The ‘middle’ occupations between these two extremes each had between 40 and 44 per cent of respondents using e-learning for the necessary duration. Interestingly, there is a fair degree of stability between 2002 and 2003, in the proportions of each occupation spending at least ten per cent of the training time e-learning. The one exception to this is the manual staff category, which has almost tripled over this time period, from seven to 20 per cent. Once again, however, we should be slightly cautious about making strong inferences for the way such trends might apply outside the sample.

2.3 Differences by size of company

Nisar (2002), points out that empirical studies show that small employers are less likely to provide training than larger ones and, by inference, he assumes that the same applies in the case of e- learning. But the extent to which this is true, in relation to small employers and e-learning must be questioned, especially given the potential cost savings of using an off-the-shelf e-learning tool, instead of sending a member of staff on a course (see Sambrook, 2003).

CIPD (2003), broke down their results by organisation size, ‘but found that this is generally not a factor influencing the use of e- learning, though there is a small tendency for very small

(^1) It might be the case that those in higher level jobs were more likely to recall that they used e-learning materials as part of a seminar.

Table 2.3: Occupational groups who get at least ten per cent of their training time via e- learning

2002 2003 Clerical and Administrative Staff 42.5 44. IT Staff 56.2 61. Manual Staff 7.2 20. Middle and Junior managers 34 41. Professionals 43.1 43. Senior managers 24.2 25. Technical staff 39.2 39.

Source: CIPD, 2002

10 Institute for Employment Studies

organisations (with 25 to 49 employees) to use less e-learning than larger organisations’ (p16). However, it should be borne in mind that the small companies in the sample would have been unusual, in the sense that they had chosen to join an organisation, the CIPD, with an interest in training.

Other research based on EU (CEDEFOP, 2003) area notes that:

‘[t]he survey shows smaller organisations supplying training have adopted e-learning more than larger ones. Taking all the respondents together, almost 38 per cent of the training provided by those with under 50 employees involved the use of e-learning, whereas, for larger organisations, the figure was only twenty-eight per cent.’

When this was broken down by country, this finding was shown to be true for the UK, although this was not the case for all countries. It could be argued that this pattern was reflected in the wider employer-population — after all, the results exclude those employers who offer no training whatsoever, many of whom are smaller employers.

However, it is very difficult to draw firm conclusions from the survey. Firstly, because it was administered over the Internet, therefore excluding businesses without access to the web — who are, therefore, less likely to have e-learning. Second, the sample was not randomly generated, but taken from various databases of employers who are known to do training. Thirdly, the response rate was very low (800 respondents, or below seven per cent). Clearly, this will bias the results in favour of those organisations with a key interest in returning the questionnaire which, by inference, suggests an interest in e-learning.

Our own analysis of the Labour Force Survey identifies little difference by company size as to whether respondents who received training in the last four weeks did so at least partially via e-learning (see Table 2.4 — e-learning defined here in relation to

Table 2.4: Whether training in the last four weeks includes e-learning, by company size

On the job training only

Training included e-learning

Training did not include e-learning Total No. of people N % N % N % N % 1 to 24 235,565 41.5 74,315 13.1 258,396 45.5 568,276 100. 25 to 149 400,043 44.5 94,055 10.5 403,885 45.0 897,983 100. 250 to 499 98,541 45.1 25,321 11.6 94,594 43.3 218,456 100. 500+ 220,356 44.1 62,219 12.5 216,783 43.4 499,358 100. Don't know, but between 50 and 499 36,266^ 54.5^ 4,392^ 6.6^ 25,914^ 38.9^ 66,572^ 100. Total 990,771 44.0 260,302 11.6 999,572 44.4 2,250,645 100.

Note: Includes only those who had some form of training in the four weeks preceding the survey, excluding those working towards an NVQ. e-learning defined here as the use of information from the Internet and/or CD-ROM

Source: Labour Force Survey, Spring to Summer 2003

12 Institute for Employment Studies

and local government (Clark, 2003a), and in particular, in the health sector (Henry, 2002; Clark, 2003a; Young 2003).

2.5 The kinds of e-learning provided

2.5.1 What is taught

The question of what is actually taught via e-learning is addressed in some of the literature, especially the question whether it is used for hard skills (for example, IT training) or soft skills (for example, interpersonal skills). Despite the fact that surveys show differences between the proportion of employers teaching each type of skill — ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ — via e-learning, the studies all indicate that the latter is more common than the former (CIPD, 2002; Young, 2002; Beamish et al., 2002; CEDEFOP, 2003). The differences between surveys can be partially explained by methodological differences (for example, source and size of sample).

CIPD is probably the most reliable and recent estimate of the types of e-learning used in companies, defined as the use of learning through electronic technology such as intranets and the Internet, excluding ‘stand alone’ technology such as CD-ROMs. Table 2.6 gives the types of training delivered by e-learning in respondent companies for which this was applicable. As the table shows, ‘hard skills’, such as IT and technical training are the most commonly used, and are used in the majority of cases (covering 84 and 61 per cent of the companies respectively).

Table 2.5: Whether training in the last four weeks includes e-learning, by sector

On the job training only

Training included e-learning

Training did not include e-learning Total N % N % N % N % Agriculture & non- manufacturing 58,116^ 42.7^ 11,865^ 8.7^ 66,144^ 48.6^ 136,125^ 100. Manufacturing 118,946 49.4 26,602 11.1 95,163 39.5 240,711 100. Distribution, hotels & restaurants 145,933^ 52.5^ 20,859^ 7.5^ 111,056^ 40.0^ 277,848^ 100. Transport & communication 67,774^ 49.3^ 9,418^ 6.9^ 60,271^ 43.8^ 137,463^ 100. Banking, finances, insuranceetc. 165,205^ 40.1^ 70,736^ 17.2^ 175,716^ 42.7^ 411,657^ 100. Public administration, health & education 427,631^ 38.4^ 143,137^ 12.8^ 543,220^ 48.8^ 1,113,988^ 100. Other 49,214 48.5 11,806 11.6 40,357 39.8 101,377 100. Total 1,032,819 42.7 294,423 12.2 1,091,927 45.1 2,419,169 100.

Note: Includes only those who had some form of training in the four weeks preceding the survey, excluding those working towards an NVQ. e-learning defined here as the use of information from the Internet and/or CD-ROM

Source: Labour Force Survey, Spring to Summer 2003

Literature Review of Evidence on e-Learning in the Workplace 13

However, a considerable proportion of companies, over one-third, did use e-learning to ‘teach’ interpersonal skills, suggesting that e- learning will not be confined solely to hard skills, and as other studies have suggested, may increasingly develop into these areas (Young, 2002; Beamish et al., 2002). However, it should be born in mind that the sample for the CIPD survey was subscribers to their pro-training organisation, so it is possible that these figures overestimate the proportions using e-learning for softer skills.

Furthermore, even in larger companies with progressive views toward e-learning, the amount of time spent teaching softer skills via e-learning may be dwarfed by that devoted to hard skills such as IT. Beamish et al., (2002), in a study of selected, mainly global but UK-based companies, discovered that:

‘Only 20 per cent of the organisations’ online teaching time is used for soft skills, and the majority of the study managers are enthusiastic about the role of e-learning of the teaching of hard skills, such as IT. This stance partially reflects the managers’ perception of the limitations of e-learning for soft skill training, and also their strategy for the early deployment of e-learning, preferring to start with online content that is proven to be effective.’ (p108)

2.5.2 How it is taught

The use of technology: Synchronous vs. A-Synchronous

Whilst it is not the purpose of this literature review to discuss the technological issues related to e-learning, it is important to make a distinction about how it is taught to, or rather used by, learners. This distinction is between Synchronous and A-Synchronous learning. As Welsh et al., (2003, p246) points out, ‘A-Synchronous e- learning refers to e-learning that is ‘pre-recorded’ or available any time of day, potentially from any location.’ Applications of A-Synchronous learning vary from, at a basic level, PowerPoint slides posted on a website, to more sophisticated variants enabling greater learning and involvement with, perhaps, graphics and animation. It is important to note that this may involve the ability to leave

Table 2.6: Occupational groups receiving at least ten per cent of their training time via e- learning

2002 2003 Clerical and Administrative Staff 42.5 44. IT Staff 56.2 61. Manual Staff 7.2 20. Middle and Junior managers 34 41. Professionals 43.1 43. Senior managers 24.2 25. Technical staff 39.2 39.

Source: CIPD, 2003

Literature Review of Evidence on e-Learning in the Workplace 15

off-the-shelf material), or produced by an e-learning company but in collaboration with the client (ibid.). There is a distinct lack of reliable information on this. The literature seems to suggest that companies are increasingly using e-learning material that is custom produced (Barron, 2003; Russell, 2003). A survey of 350 organisations across the world, but predominately in the USA, found that 50 per cent of respondents used off-the-shelf learning content, whilst 72 per cent used custom or internally developed content. This, therefore, suggests that companies used a mix of the two. However, the survey has a very small sample at 250, and we were unable to ascertain how the sample was arrived at, so these results should be treated with caution.

The use of ‘universities’

The terminology of universities is increasingly being used in relation to training. First, there is a growing trend amongst large companies to create ‘universities’ — for example, Barclays university, or Shell Open University (see CIPD, 2003b). There is little information on how common this is in the UK, but in the USA it is estimated that there are 1,600 corporate universities (Clarke and Hermens, 2001, 264). Clarke and Hermens, (2001, 264), however, argues that, ‘most corporate universities are, in fact, re-badged human resources/information/training departments of organisations, with little change beyond the name.’

It is important to remember, however, that some education relating to current work is conducted by ‘real’ universities. Consortiums of universities are increasingly offering MBAs via e- learning to multinational companies (see Clarke and Hermens, 2001, pp260–261, for examples). It has not been made clear from this literature review how prevalent take-up of these courses is in the UK.

At the other end of the company spectrum, small and medium sized companies are increasingly using e-learning courses and material produced by the University for Industry, or rather ‘learndirect’ as it has become known. learndirect has a ‘Skills for Life’ programme which aims to improve peoples work-based skills, and produces e-learning courses and materials to this end. In 2002/2003, 64,000 SMEs enrolled employees on Skills for Life courses, representing 106,336 employees. This is targeted to increase to 200,000 employees and 70,000 employers this financial year (learndirect, 2003).

2.6 Conclusions

In conclusion, surveys seem to suggest that a large proportion of employers are using e-learning; however, we should treat these surveys with some caution due to their low response rates and, in some cases, biased samples. This also makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about e-learning usage. However, consistent

16 Institute for Employment Studies

messages are that manual workers are less likely to get e-learning, and sectors where computer usage is high (IT, financial services) correspondingly have higher levels of e-learning usage. Despite a lack of hard evidence, it is also fair to conclude that ‘hard’ skills (for example IT) dominate over ‘soft’ skills. The research also suggests that A-Synchronous technologies are used more widely than those which are Synchronous, although, once again, we have found no strong evidence to back this assertion. Finally, we noted the rise in the use of learndirect for SMEs and ‘Corporate Universities’ for larger employers.