One of the biggest disappointments in the world of learning has been the completion rates for e-learning courses. Although it’s started to creep up from the early days of 3% that some of us pioneers experienced, it’s only risen to 13%. And with development costs high for the better courses that include a lot of interaction and custom video, how can we live with a 13% return on our investment?
With that as a problem definition, my team and I have been in a constant search for new ideas around these tools. And after years of research, customer feedback has surfaced a list of “must haves” for a next generation e-learning platform. Not only does customer feedback support it, but also studies from renowned institutions like Stanford. Armed with that “must have list,” the optimal platform must include the following capabilities:
That’s a tall wish list, but there’s research that supports many of these needs coming out of Stanford and other centers. For example, Stanford looked at one of their 8-week MOOC offerings and compared results. To the point of accountability, they found that when students enrolled individually, only 2% finished the course. In contrast, when people enrolled in teams, 32% of the participants completed the course. The issue being that feeling of social obligation tends to keep people engaged to the end. But the MOOC has other issues, chief amongst them being the ability to get help when you need it.
In that vein, Stanford found that having access to a course instructor or mentor, pushed the completion rate to 44%. The reason is simple to understand. If someone is available to get you past a spot where you’re feeling blocked, then your more likely to keep going forward with your studies at that point. If you can’t get the answer, then most likely, you’ll pack it up for the night and wait for help that might come a few days later.
The work at Stanford[1] also included these other notable facts:
So, armed with these facts we set out to find the perfect system. It wasn’t out there. Something was always missing from the equation. As a result, we took another approach. We spec’d out a system that would be suited for the corporate world dominated by LMS platforms, but that also worked in the B2C world.
We found a system that was close, but needed some functionality added to it to get it to where we wanted it. We then set out to make the rest a reality. Our platform partner tested it by letting Robin Sharma run his Leading without Titles content from the platform. Sharma’s results were phenomenal. He not only was able to achieve the 95% completion rates; his Net Promoter Scores were an average rating of 9 out of 10. That was all we needed. The rest was environmental needs: LMS-friendly interfaces, multitenancy to handle multiple venues at the same entity simultaneously, and lastly, a drag-and-drop way of creating e-learning course content, not too unlike using a tool like PowerPoint.
Instead of learners being passive, isolated viewers of videos who are then relegated to taking a quiz, we now have a platform where they can actively build elevator pitches, work on negotiation strategies and then share them with cohorts and coaches for feedback. And if they start to fall behind, that’s when the learner’s accountability team steps in to offer their support and help.
The next generation e-learning platforms is starting to take shape. Learning is spaced out as needed by the learners, but all of the great elements of a live workshop are available with a click.
We’d be happy to share our knowledge with you, and even let you play around with the platform. Just let us know. Could this be the start of the revival of e-learning? We think so, and we’ve put our money behind it. We call it L.E.A.P., and you can see a preview of it here: https://www.bakercommunications.com/leap.html.
[1] Chuck Eesley (2014), Stanford, NovoEd White Paper – Chuck Eesley Engagement Study
Author: Joe DiDonato, Chief of Staff. Baker Communications Inc.
