0
0
Case Study: Training Delivery: Face-to-Face vs. Online Learning
Over the course of my three-decade career, I have had the opportunity to lead numerous projects, process improvements, and organizational changes. My case studies often combine various experiences and reflect generalized observations that stem from real-world situations. While some elements may resonate with your organization, others may not, as these insights span different contexts and industries. However, I believe these insights hold valuable lessons worth considering.
As a coach during the COVID-19 pandemic, I became particularly intrigued by research exploring the impact of online coaching compared to face-to-face coaching, specifically how these delivery methods affect the relationship between the coach and the individual. Online coaching, conducted through platforms like Teams or Zoom, has the potential to be just as effective as in-person coaching, but it does come with its unique challenges. For example, the nature of remote communication can influence both the depth of connection and the quality of the coaching experience. These insights are particularly relevant as we think about training delivery in modern workplaces.
Additionally, I observed the challenges posed by online training, especially when compared to traditional classroom settings. In face-to-face training, longer sessions with extended dialogues tend to encourage in-depth discussion and greater engagement. Sessions often consist of 45-minute intervals, followed by activities or breaks, which provide learners with opportunities to process information, reflect, and interact. In contrast, online learning demands a more dynamic approach due to shorter attention spans and the mental fatigue that sets in much earlier. Absorption of information in online settings can be less effective unless the sessions are broken up into shorter, more participative activities, with regular breaks to maintain focus.
One of the key takeaways from this observation is that online learning should be organized into shorter, more engaging activities, such as breakout groups and interactive sessions, in order to avoid cognitive overload. Essentially, online learning needs to be composed of multiple staccato-like sessions rather than one long continuous block of instruction, which can drain mental energy and reduce engagement. On the other hand, classroom learning allows for longer stretches of discourse and potentially more in-depth learning during the same time frame.
When rolling out training across a large audience, the question becomes: which method is most effective? Classroom learning is more personal and relational, fostering better understanding and providing opportunities for small-group discussions. This is why, for example, schools often emphasize smaller class sizes—so that students can receive more individualized attention and support. However, in the corporate world, logistical constraints—such as the cost and time required for travel and accommodation—can make face-to-face learning difficult to scale.
Alternatively, online learning offers a more scalable solution. However, it requires a fundamental shift in how training is structured. Training materials need to be adapted, and engagement strategies must be carefully rethought. On the positive side, online training is not bound by physical classroom limits, allowing for potentially much larger audiences. But this brings up another question: what is the ideal class size for effective learning?
When you have a small class size of around 8-10 participants, there’s enough room for meaningful dialogue and engagement. In contrast, when class sizes grow to 30 or more, it starts to feel more like a lecture than an interactive training session, reducing the opportunity for Q&A or individual discussion. The more participants you have, the less personal and engaging the experience becomes. When class sizes grow to 50 or even 100, the event is no longer a training session; it becomes more of a webinar or conference—an environment that is not conducive to deep learning. While such events are great for communication and idea-sharing, they don’t foster participative learning or allow for meaningful interaction.
The challenge with larger groups is also the lack of follow-up. You can’t conduct a webinar with 100 people and expect to follow up individually with each participant afterward to check how they’re applying the knowledge. This makes it challenging for participants to internalize and apply what they’ve learned, reducing the overall effectiveness of the training.
Organizations must carefully assess the benefits and drawbacks of face-to-face versus online learning, considering the right class sizes for the content being delivered. Concepts from the theory of constraints and Lean principles suggest that smaller batches—whether in learning, project delivery, or process improvement—tend to be more efficient than larger ones. Smaller groups allow for faster learning and better retention, as individuals are more likely to engage and apply what they’ve learned in real time.
It’s important to acknowledge that the nature of the content being delivered also matters. If the training is focused on simple, information-heavy material, it may be sufficient to provide it via recorded sessions or notes. However, if the training involves developing new skills or competencies, the learning experience must be more interactive. Research shows that people learn much more effectively when they engage in active practice, trial, and error, rather than passively listening to information. This calls for smaller, more interactive classes that allow for hands-on practice and feedback.
Top Tips and Best Practice Summary:
1. Smaller Groups Foster Better Learning: Class sizes should be kept small (8-10 people) to encourage meaningful dialogue and interaction.
2. Adapt for Online Learning: For remote training, structure sessions in shorter, more dynamic activities to maintain attention and engagement.
3. Ensure Practical Application: Use active learning methods, such as breakout sessions and peer discussions, to enhance the learning experience.
4. Know Your Content: The complexity of the material should dictate the learning environment. Complex content benefits from face-to-face, interactive formats.
5. Follow-up is Key: Ensure that training is followed by ongoing support and feedback to help participants implement what they’ve learned.
6. Scalability vs. Quality: Online training allows for scalability, but quality should never be sacrificed for the sake of reaching larger audiences.
7. Interactive Learning: Learning by doing is far more effective than passive listening. Allow participants to practice and refine their skills during training.
By carefully balancing the benefits of face-to-face and online learning, organizations can create training programs that are both scalable and effective, fostering greater engagement and retention in participants.
#LearningAndDevelopment #EmployeeTraining #LeadershipDevelopment #OrganizationalGrowth #HR #Coaching #WorkplaceLearning #TrainingOptimization
