Does eLearning work? Our reflections on Thalheimer’s latest research

Erin McGee, 4 min read

We’ve heard it on the internet. We’ve heard it from the learning professionals we’ve interviewed. We’ve heard it from our customers.

Everyone’s facing one common problem.

What problem, you ask?

Cracking the learning effectiveness enigma.

The hardest part about workplace learning is trying to figure out whether it’s been effective or not, and if it has, by how much.

Some companies will try to place either elearning or facilitated training above the other for a myriad of reasons.

Facilitators will make PowerPoints and handouts to prove their point; that of course their method is better, while elearning evangelists will furiously create click-and-drop-branched-xAPI-friendly course to prove theirs.

And guess what?

Nobody wins. While there are positives (and shortfalls) of both methods, the research has shown that it’s not about using one method or the other.

A few months ago Will Thalheimer, one of the most scientifically rigorous members of the popular learning community, conducted a thorough analysis of learning research to answer the question on many companies’ lips:

Does eLearning work?

If you’re keen to dive into 30 pages of learning research goodness, you can find it on his blog for free. Otherwise, I’m going to go ahead and pull out some exciting findings from the research right here!

Thalheimer first summarised five meta-analyses that compared elearning and learning technologies in general to facilitated classroom training.

The meta-analyses found that, generally, elearning delivered better results than traditional classroom practice.

Wait, what?

I’m going to go ahead and assume that most people would be surprised by this conclusion. Surely an involved, engaging face-to-face training with a facilitator would be more effective than learning online?

Apparently not. We’ll get to why that is a little further down.

After the meta-analyses, Thalheimer examined six research articles that also compared elearning to other methods: blended learning, flipped classroom and classroom-only.

Again, they found that elearning can be more effective.

Take the study by Jeno, Grytnes and Vandvik (2017) for example. Learners learnt about identifying species in their biology class. Some were then given textbooks as support, and others a mobile learning app. The results showed that learners that used the learning app:

  • Learned more,
  • Rated their competence more highly, and
  • Reported being more intrinsically motivated.

Great news for the elearning camp!

Kind of. The caveat this time was the variation of the results. In some cases, elearning did outperform the classroom. And in others, it performed worse or around the same.

So what gives?

At first glance these mixed results don’t prove the effectiveness of any single method. Frustrating. Though when examined further, there was a common thread that ran through the results:

What makes elearning effective is its design elements — that is, the learning methods utilised.

Eureka! We now know the reason why neither elearning or face-to-face training is better than the other in isolation. The third section of the report then involved Thalhaimer comparing different learning methods within elearning programs.

Some key findings from this section:

“The researchers conjectured that elearning’s capability to enable learning to be delivered over time and provide deliberate practice and feedback probably created the strong success reported.”

“Research generally finds that a conversational writing style — especially one that uses personal pronouns such as “you” and “your” — creates better learning outcomes.”

This was exciting to read as the analysis validates what we focus on with Yarno learners:

  • Delivering learning spaced over time
  • Engaging in deliberate practice
  • Giving immediate feedback
  • Using conversational language when writing questions

But for me, the most powerful sentences read:

As evidenced in the research, elearning is not relegated to simple learning materials or trivial tasks. In this batch of studies, learners engaged in learning how to conduct forensic interviews, solve linear algebra problems, make sense of cerebral haemorrhages, pull a person to safety, understand the Doppler Effect, and identify plants and their attributes.

Too often do companies use elearning to merely check boxes, test competence and report on compliance. Results like those cited above are testament to the viability of elearning for uses that span wider than checking facts — to develop skills, improve decision making, and solve problems.

The final section of the report focused less on elearning and more on similar or intersecting learning technologies. The studies involved simulations, animations, digital games, computer-mediated language learning, interactivity and digital feedback.

Thalheimer noted that “the breadth and depth of research relevant to elearning is stunning”, and concluded that using technology is generally beneficial.

Dr. Thalheimer’s final conclusions were as follows:

  1. When learning methods are held constant between elearning and classroom instruction, both produce equal results.
  2. When no special efforts are made to hold learning methods constant, eLearning tends to outperform traditional classroom instruction.
  3. A great deal of variability is evident in the research. eLearning often produces better results than classroom instruction, often produces worse results, often similar results.
  4. What matters, in terms of learning effectiveness, is NOT the learning modality (elearning vs. classroom); it’s the learning methods that matter, including such factors as realistic practice, spaced repetitions, real-world contexts, and feedback.
  5. Blended learning (using elearning with classroom instruction) tends to outperform classroom learning by relatively large magnitudes, probably because the elearning used in blended learning often uses more effective learning methods.

So, it all comes down to the use of the right learning techniques to drive learning effectiveness. Techniques like spaced repetition, active recall, applying the learning to real-world contexts and receiving feedback.

We know that Yarno alone can’t solve every learning problem — we’re not trying to. And we certainly don’t tell our customers that we can. But we can be confident in is that we’re committed to utilising research-based learning methods that really work. That we can help employees remember the important stuff, to get better at what they do.

We can nerd out on learning research all day (Lachy, especially), so if you’re interested in having a chat about how Yarno uses best-practice learning methods, get in touch!

Research:
Thalheimer, W. (2017). Does learning work? What the scientific research says! Work-Learning Research Inc. Available at: http://www.work-learning.com/catalog.html

Erin McGee

Erin McGee

Erin is an ever-trusty wordsmith and resident spreader of good vibes. You'll find her chatting up a storm in Mandarin, yelling kiai's at jujitsu and eating dark chocolate at 2pm sharp.

More from Erin McGee

We'd love to chat about how Yarno can benefit your business

Mark Eggers

Mark, our Head of Sales, will organise a no-obligation call with you to understand your business and any training challenges you’re facing. Too easy.