Due Diligence

Since (at least) the days of teaching machines in the mid-1960s, educational technology has been an intriguing area for investment. Most investors, whether major corporations, venture capital firms, or knowledgeable individuals have lost their shirts in this industry. I recently posed a question to one bright young fellow from a medium-size venture capital firm: If you were doing due diligence on a firm offering e-Learning content, what would you look for? I got the pat answers about competitive advantage and distinguishing the firm in a crowded marketplace, but it seemed to me he basically had no idea what one ought to look for in a vendor of training programs. Most training/HR executives are similarly clueless when it comes to evaluating the apparent quality of the courseware. Upon reflection, I suggest there are five questions that ought to be explored with the proponent of the training, be it a training vendor or even an internal instructional designer:

1. What is the experience each learner is going to have during the training session? Is it listening, watching, reading, speaking, discriminating, solving, questioning, calculating, programming . . . or what? The training vendor/instructor ought to be willing to describe in detail what the learner will be doing during the period of “instruction.” If it is largely listening or reading, one ought to be aware that two-thirds of adults say they don't learn very well from listening or reading.

2. Is that experience directly relevant to the knowledge, skill or competency, or do we have to depend on some internal process to translate that experience into the competency? If we watch and listen to someone tell us how to hit a wedge out of a sandtrap, we have to translate what we saw and heard into our own kinesthetic action. Easy for some, difficult for others. If we hear an attorney explain the difference between a quid pro quo sexual harassment and a hostile workplace type of harassment, will we know what to do if we hear that one of the outside sales reps who calls on the firm has maybe been a little too persistent in asking the firm's secretary to have a drink with him? If we attend a PowerPoint show on firewalls (which does not include any practice in installation or configuration), will we know what questions to ask to select the best brand, where to position them and how to configure them?
      Most of us need to construct our understanding, and we do that by discussing the topic with others, by trying to explain it to someone else, by practicing the skill or trying to apply the knowledge to a situation we do understand. If the learning experience relies on some internal process, is there an opportunity, through practice, collaboration, etc. to construct our learning?

3. What skills (recall, discriminate, calculate, install, design, etc.) will the learner practice during the classroom/e-Learning session? Not what is he/she learning about, but what is he/she learning to do? Is there sufficient practice on the major variations and permutations to acquire any fluency or proficiency? Is there feedback or knowledge of results during that practice? If the learner makes a mistake, or gets close, but not quite right, how is that remediated? More explanation, a different kind of explanation or illustration, or simply telling the learner, “wrong, try again?” Will anyone, including the trainee, even know where he/she went wrong? Trial-and-error learning is not very efficient, but it can work if the trainee can figure out what he/she got wrong.

4. How soon after the learning experience will trainees have to use their new knowledge or skill? If they do not use it immediately, much of the “learning” will be lost. Use/practice is what moves knowledge from short-term memory into long-term memory.

5. Does the training vendor accept accountability for the outcomes? Not at Kirkpatrick's Level 4, perhaps, but at least at level 3? In the strictest sense of accountability, an outside vendor shouldn't get paid unless trainees can demonstrate mastery of the instructional objectives. Is there any objective validation that the instruction does lead to improved performance or understanding?

One does not have to be an educational theorist in order to explore those questions and to determine whether the vendor/instructor knows what he/she is talking about. Any indication of fuzziness or waffling suggests the investor ought to be wary. And so should the responsible executive.

  how adults learn

 relevant technologies

 compliance management systems

  wired seminars

    developing competencies

 technical support

 about us

strategic consulting in e-Learning