I learned a term recently for something I’ve thought about in the past but didn’t know was a thing: compression. Compression means it will take learners longer to complete a live class than an equivalent elearning. In other words, if a four hour class is offered in both a live classroom version and a self-paced elearning version, participants will complete the self-paced version quicker with the same level of achievement.
Apparently–and I didn’t know this either–the rule of thumb for compression is 50%. A four hour live class can reasonably be turned into a two hour self-study. The persuasive utility of this, of course, is huge. What leader wouldn’t want their people in training only half as much time?
There are some enormous caveats. One is that time spent practicing cannot be compressed, so the more focused the training is on practicing skills, the less compression is possible. It also appears that the elearning has to be text-based in order to allow significant compression. People read faster than they talk. The elearning we produce at my firm are audio-based, so one wouldn’t expect very much compression.
That brings up the question, should our elearning be audio-based? We use audio for a number of reasons. The most important is that from a cognition perspective, using the audio channel for narration and the visual channel for complementary information (charts, organizational bullet points, tables, etc.) leads to better learning.
The question then morphs to: Is the increase in the quality of the learning worth the investment? Experienced professionals can take in new information very efficiently. If training is focused on them, it’s possible that the increase in learning may be immaterial compared to a time savings of 50%.
It would be interesting to offer the same elearning two ways (audio or text), randomize which one people get, and measure time on task, satisfaction, and exam performance across the two conditions.