Computer-based training vs. field training: which is best?
In the last 10 years, there’s been a huge shift away from field training with live instructors to computer-based training. It just makes sense—financially and logistically—to make and take online courses for many subjects, especially those that are exclusively software-based.
For example, why drive to a classroom and pay big bucks to learn Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) or JavaScript when you can take great, inexpensive online courses from LinkedIn Learning (formerly Lynda.com)? I learned SharePoint, Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), eXtensible Markup Language (XML), and Linux command line from their courses.
Even the free resources on the web are endless. You can learn tons of useful stuff from free tutorials at W3Schools.com (HTML, CSS, and JavaScript tutorials for starters) and Khan Academy (the interactive JavaScript course is a great intro).
I will even dare to admit that I learned how to assemble my Weber grill (the printed instructions were worthless), grow potatoes and garlic, and install a rain barrel system to catch rainwater from Youtube. 🙂
Pros of computer-based training
The great thing about computer-based training from the student’s perspective is that it’s inexpensive and you can go at your own pace. You can replay each lesson as many times as you need, then pause to practice the concepts. This is exactly how I learned to use SharePoint ten years ago and how I learned CSS and JavaScript coding more recently.
Another advantage of computer-based training is that it’s much less expensive to produce than field training. After the initial development costs, a course can be taken tens of thousands of times with only a minimal fee to host the course online. In contrast, field training has hefty recurring costs for the instructor’s travel, lodging, and printed student materials.
A third advantage is that you can reach students around the world in every time zone. So even if the fee charged per course is modest, the developer can make a lot of money from a popular course.
For example, one month’s individual subscription to LinkedIn Learning costs $50, which gives you access to all courses. The CSS Essential Training course has been taken by more than 177,000 learners. If each individual learner paid $50 for a 1-month subscription and took only one course, this course earned Linked In Learning $8,850,000. Even if each learner was charged the small-business discount rate of $31, that still comes out to $5,487,000. Quite substantial earnings, either way.
Cons of computer-based training
A major problem with computer-based training is that you don’t have any incentive to complete the coursework on a particular day. Because, well, it will still be there tomorrow. It’s really easy to fall behind or just drop out without finishing the course. Even though I’m a highly motivated person, this happens to me sometimes.
Another drawback is that you generally don’t have the opportunity to ask for help from a live instructor or classmates. If you get stumped, you are out of luck.
Finally, the lively interaction you get in a real classroom is missing, which is an important aspect of in-person classes that reduces boredom, increases engagement, and reinforces learning.
A combined approach
Sometimes a combined approach to training works best. On-site field training is still a requirement of many contracts, especially for military and government customers. It’s particularly important when you need to train customers to use integrated hardware and software systems, because hands-on practice with the equipment is needed.
I once wrote three user guides for a video surveillance software suite. We had military and commercial customers. With the user guides as source material, I then created three related multimedia training modules using Adobe Captivate, Camtasia, and PowerPoint.
After the system was installed at a football stadium, I was sent to train the security guards on how to use their new video surveillance system. The system consisted of custom software that controlled hundreds of security cameras.
Since many guards were unable to attend the live training sessions, I left the printed user guides as well as the recorded multimedia computer-based training modules with the supervisor. That way, each security guard was able to watch the training as often as needed and new guards who were hired later were trained at no additional cost.
By combining traditional field training and computer-based learning, we provided our customers with what worked best for them.