|
All Innovative Learning courses are developed according to its unique online learning model. The learning model has been developed to enhance learning outcomes in an online environment and is based in human learning theory. This model focuses specifically on the means by which information is presented and the structure and nature of the testing and re-testing process. There is a patent pending on this model in the US and overseas. There is currently no existing patent awarded for educational models specific to virtual environments.
Research regarding the educational and cost effectiveness of this model has been highlighted by the data collected. The following is a summary of the research data:
|
Seminar Group |
n=47
12 Male, 35 Female
26 High School, 7 Certificate,12 Bachelors, 2 Masters
Age Range 20-57 (mean=41, median=43)
|
|
|
|
Online Study Group |
n=55
18 Male, 37 Female
31 High School, 9 Certificate, 12 Bachelors, 3 Masters
Age Range 21-62 (mean=39, median=42)
|
|
- Seminar and Online course using same content
- Seminar tested periodically throughout content delivery and at the end of seminar. The purpose was to match the testing with the online condition
- Online group tested according to learning model requirements
| |
Initial Testing |
3 Months |
6 Months |
12 Months |
| Online Group |
96% |
86% |
83.4% |
84.2% |
| Seminar Group |
68% |
58.3% |
48% |
42.7% |
Resulting data demonstrated a pronounced difference between the Seminar group and the online group. The initial testing scores were 41% higher than those of the Seminar group. While there was a decline in subsequent three, six and 12 month follow-up test scores for both groups, the online group performed consistently higher than the Seminar group.
Twelve month data indicate test scores of more than 84% for the online group as compared to just fewer than 43% for the seminar group. This represents a more than 103% difference between the two groups in favour of the online group.
When surveyed regarding their overall experience, 35% of respondents in the online group rated it "Good", 58.8% found the experience "Very Good" and 5.9% rated it "Excellent". Furthermore, 94.2% of respondents indicated they believed this to be their preferred training method once they had completed the program. This figure compares to just 22% prior to beginning online training.
As a part of a post study evaluation regarding other benefits of using an online approach to workforce development, the cost effectiveness of the model was conducted.
The criteria by which the mean cost of an individual training were evaluated from a cost perspective included:
1. Cost of seminar fees/online course cost
2. Mean travel cost (fuel/flights/other)
3. Human Resource
a. Mean staff replacement cost per seminar attendee
b. Mean cost of those in the online group who were paid to take the course
4. Miscellaneous costs such as food allowances and the like
Table 2 below shows the mean cost for attendees in each group in each of the above categories.
| |
Seminar Fees / Online Fees |
Travel |
Staff Replacement |
Misc. Costs |
Total Mean Cost |
| Seminar Group |
$250 |
$110 |
$122 |
$27 |
$509 |
| Online Group |
$120 |
$0 |
$1.63 |
$0 |
$121.63 |
The mean cost of training for those in the seminar group was $508 as compared to the online group at just over $121. This represents an increased cost of training a seminar attendee of more than 76% over the cost of training an individual online.
The majority of organizations employing subjects in the online group were not required to pay staff for the hours completing the online course as all but two subjects completed the task in their own time. However, it is acknowledged that this may not be the case for all organizations using an online workforce development approach. That said, even when allowing for the mean number of hours for completion of the online course (3hours) at the average hourly salary for all subjects across both groups ($17), there remains an increase cost of 57% for the seminar group compared to the online group.
Using the lower figure of 56% above, the dollar for dollar difference in training the two groups were:
Seminar group: $23,923
Online Group: $8,721
This represents an actual savings for training the online group of $15,202. Furthermore, these figures are based on the online group being larger by 8 subjects. If these figures were extrapolated then the savings in absolute dollar terms would be greater.
The online group performed consistently higher than the seminar group. It would be fair to assume from this data that under the conditions of this study, online training using the Innovative-learning model results in improved learning outcomes compared to a more traditional face to face method of training with this group.
It should be acknowledged, however, that as with all educational models, there will be times when educational requirements will not fit this model. This is particularly the case for skills that require a "practical" demonstration such as First Aid or similar skill sets. That said, it could be concluded that for the theoretical aspect of such topics can be very effectively taught using this model thus drastically reducing the more expensive and time consuming face to face method.
The difference in the cost of training the two groups was significant even when adjusting for inequities in the cost of staff replacement with a savings of over 57% for the online group.
General participant feedback indicated that overall satisfaction was positive regarding the use of an online approach with 92% of participants indicating they would like to participate in another course using this delivery method. The top three reasons cited as being beneficial were:
1. Ability to learn at own pace
2. Ability to access from home
3. Ability to revisit and review content while taking the course
The top three system features cited as being beneficial and useful were:
1. Communication facilities (Particularly chat live rooms for shared study groups and peer support)
2. On screen note taking
3. Digital library
There appears to be overall consensus that online training is being seen as a more than viable option both in terms of its effectiveness and in terms of its attraction as a mode of content delivery.
Senior managers of the organisations who employed the participants in both the seminar and online groups cited an overwhelming preference for the online model. 82% of managers surveyed rated the likelihood of adopting this as their preferred training approach between "Likely" to "Very Likely". The top three reasons cited were:
1. Greater cost effectiveness: Ability to reduce/replace training personnel while achieving improved outcomes
2. Availability: Particularly for new staff
3. Improved learning outcomes
Overall, the data indicates that online learning using the Innovative-Learning model can be more educationally effective than face to face models. Some critics of the move toward education in virtual environments cite lack of human interaction as a reason for retaining face to face models of training. However, this aspect is largely addressed with the inclusion of communication features in the system. That said, there is general agreement amongst learning theorists that human interaction may be useful for interpersonal reasons but does little to improve the educational outcome.
|
Innovative Learning Online Course Library (2/4/2012) - Complete Catalog
Education Pre K - 12 - Autism - Mental Health - Developmental Disabilities - Treatment Planning - Positive Behavioral Supports - Alcohol and Drug - Health Care - Aged Care
|
|