This document discusses whether asynchronous e-learning modules could replace one-on-one in-person training in corporate settings. While some research has found e-learning to be as effective as in-person training and offer cost savings, other studies have found disadvantages to e-learning like a lack of interaction. The author plans to conduct a survey and interviews of working adults to discover if asynchronous e-learning could save time and costs over individual training for small offices of 50 employees or less. The results may help address gaps in the conflicting literature on the effectiveness of e-learning versus in-person training.

1. Corporate
Training:
Could E-learning
Replace One-On-
One In-Person
Learning?
Jennifer Hislop
Chestnut Hill College,
Philadelphia

2. According to the American Society
for Training & Development
(ASTD)
“For the past three years, the percentage of training
offered by organizations via traditional instructor-led
classroom has been making a slow decline...At
the same time there has been an increase in the
usage of technology-based methods...” (Miller, 2013, p.
42)

3. Introduction
• Corporations are seeing a
trend in the increase of e-learning
and the decline of
in-person training
• Preliminary research at my
workplace indicates an
interest in e-learning:
• Uniform training
• Increased access to training
• Time/cost saving

4. Potential Benefits
• Can e-learning actually
replace in-person training
as an employee learning
and development
solution?
• Similar or improved
performance/ transfer of
training (Dongsong, Zhao, Lina, &
Nunamaker, 2004; Petty, Lim, & Zulauf, 2007)
• Cost savings (Petty, Lim, & Zulauf,
2007; Strother, 2002)

5. Problem Statement
The purpose of this study is to discover if
asynchronous e-learning modules could
save training time and costs over one-on-one
in-person training in a small office
setting of 50 or less employees.

6. Background
• Andragogy
• ADDIE/Instructional
Design
• Analyze
• Design
• Develop
• Implement
• Evaluate
• Transfer of Training

7. Background
• Computer Based
Training
• Asynchronous E-learning
• Course Authoring
Tools
• Learning
Management
Systems

8. Corporate E-Learning
• Review of past qualitative
studies shows e-learning
is beneficial (Strother, 2002)
• No difference in
traditional e-learning vs
KPI-based e-learning
(Wang, Ran, Liao, & Yang, 2010)
• Participants in the same
e-learning program
gained different types of
knowledge (Baudoin, 2010)

9. Corporate E-Learning Vs. Face-To-Face
• Web-based instruction is
superior or equivalent to in-person
instruction (Pang, 2009)
• Employees have positive
experience with e-learning
and find it flexible/cost-effective
(Olafsen & Cetindamar,
2005)
• Face-to-face and e-learning
are equally effective
(Chamberlain & Taylor, 2011)

10. Corporate E-Learning Vs. Face-To-Face
• E-learning strips away
learner interaction with
the material (Witthaus, 2009)
• Activity-based
courses (Cornelius, Gordon, &
Ackland, 2011)
• E-mentoring (Thompson,
Jeffries, & Topping, 2010)

11. Literature Review
• Limited information/biased
studies on asynchronous e-learning
in corporations
• Focus on e-learning
effectiveness without
comparing to other modes of
training
• Research needed to discover
if asynchronous e-learning is
as effective as one-on-one in-person
training in a corporate
setting

12. Study Design
• 50-200 working adults
with e-learning
experience
• Online survey with
open-ended questions
• Follow up email and
in-person interviews
with some participants

13. Conclusion
• Can corporate e-learning
replace one-on-one face-to-face
training?
• Gaps in the
literature/opposing data from
various past studies
• An online survey and
interviews will be conducted
• Patterns emerging from this
qualitative phenomenological
study may help to answer
this question

14. References
Baudoin, E. (2010). Exploring diversity of learning outcomes in e-learning courses: results
of a qualitative study in a French multinational company. International Journal Of
Training & Development, 14(3), 223-238. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2010.00354.x.
Chamberlain, S., & Taylor, R. (2011). Online or Face-to-Face? An Experimental Study of
Examiner Training. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 42(4), 665-675.
Cornelius, S., Gordon, C., & Ackland, A. (2011). Towards flexible learning for adult
learners in professional contexts: an activity-focused course design. Interactive Learning
Environments, 19(4), 381-393.
Dongsong, Z., Zhao, J., Lina, Z., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2004). CAN E-LEARNING
REPLACE CLASSROOM LEARNING?. Communications Of The ACM, 47(5), 75-79.
doi:10.1145/986213.986216
Miller, L. (2013). ASTD's 2013 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT: workplace
learning. T+D, 67(11), 40- 45.
Olafsen, R., & Cetindamar, D. (2005). E-learning in a competitive firm setting. Innovations
In Education & Teaching International, 42(4), 325-335.
doi:10.1080/14703290500062581

15. References
Pang, K. (2009). Video-Driven Multimedia, Web-Based Training in the Corporate Sector:
Pedagogical Equivalence and Component Effectiveness. International Review Of
Research In Open And Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-14.
Petty, G. C., Lim, D. H., & Zulauf, J. (2007). Training Transfer between CD-ROM Based
Instruction and Traditional Classroom Instruction. Journal Of Technology Studies, 33(1),
48-56.
Strother, J. (2002). An Assessment of the Effectiveness of e-learning in Corporate
Training Programs. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance
Learning, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/83/161
Thompson, L., Jeffries, M., & Topping, K. (2010). E-Mentoring for E-Learning
Development. Innovations In Education And Teaching International, 47(3), 305-315.
Wang, M., Ran, W., Liao, J., & Yang, S. J. H. (2010). A Performance-Oriented Approach
to E Learning in the Workplace. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (4), 167–179.
Witthaus, G. (2009). The Implications of SCORM Conformance for Workplace e-Learning.
Electronic Journal Of E-Learning, 7(2), 183-190.

16. bQ
AA
Questions