Course Tests…Do We Even Need Them?

“We test because we have to test.” (Comment by Gary Wise on one of my LinkedIn discussions, “What Should a Passing Score Be?”.)

That got me thinking about why I’ve put tests in some of my courses and what functions they serve. Below are some questions that ran through my head. I’ve also put down my thoughts but I know that there are many other ideas out there and I look forward to hearing them.

Testing questions in my head:

1. Why do management and/or my client always want a test at the end of the course?
I don’t know about you but it seems that every time I build a course someone wants to put a test at the end. (Ok…sometimes it’s even me.) We always want to know if the learner understood and retained the information from the material. A text-based test at the end seems to be a quick and easy way to gain some level of confidence that knowledge transferred. Are there better ways to track this transfer and application back on the job? Sure, but it is more complicated than a simple end-of-course test. (But I’m sure we can all agree that the data gathered around how well learners are changing their behavior would be much more meaningful.)

2. Do we always have to test? Does every course need a test?
There are some courses that are fairly short and don’t tie to an essential part of someone’s job. Can a course like this not have a test? My thought would be yes. I guess it would boil down to why the course was created and do you need to “prove” to anyone that the time/resources were worth it. Maybe courses are joined together into Learning Paths and there is one final test for the entire path instead.

There are also times where we must meet compliance/regulatory requirements and we must be able to show test results. Paper-based test results can easily be presented in spreadsheets and charts.

Another great point that Gary mentioned was that “learners need to know they’ve passed”. Most of the time when we start a task we like to know when it’s completed. This thought could hold true with taking a course as well. We’d like some feedback/closure that we did what we needed to do. That our time was not wasted.

3. Is a simple True/False or Multiple Choice test ok?
Sure, if that’s the level of confidence you want to have that participants accomplished the course objectives.

4. Pre-test vs. Post-test…which one should I use? (maybe both?)
There are quite a few ways to create tests. Which option works best?

• Post-Test only
• Identical Pre and Post Tests
• Pre and Post Tests share the sames questions but randomized
• Different questions in both

5. Is the test score really an accurate indicator?
Some people are really good at remembering information and recalling that to find the correct test answers. Do they really change their behavior back on the job? Maybe the test score is more a reflection of how well the material was presented instead of actual learning.

6. Is there a way to test without “testing”?
If we put a bit more thought into what truly means success for our courses then we can discover other ways of measuring results than by just paper-based tests. For example, if we look at a sales course there are multiple things we could measure about each participant:

• Increase in sales 1, 3, 6 months following a course
• Surveys to the manager about sales concepts being applied
• Mystery shops / Observation of the participant in action
• Number of product referrals
• Increase in commission
• Customer satisfaction scores

Overall, I think that many times tests are thrown together quickly and don’t really gather meaningful data. Too often the success of our courses and participants is determined by test scores and often is not the best data to be using for that decision. With a bit more effort and brainstorming we should be able to move from Level 1 testing and get to 3 and 4.

I know that there are many aspects of testing that I’m missing and there is tons of information that I missed above.  What are your thoughts? What questions run through your head?

(Check out amazing eLearning Games, Flash Interactions, PowerPoint Backgrounds, and eLearning Templates)

Training Prison! (Can we free them?)

The other morning I was sitting in the office and got a text message from a friend. Basically it said, “I’m in class right now…dieing of boredom.” (This was at about 8:45am) Another text later said, “It’s a tax class. Even worse there is someone from the IRS speaking.”

This was mandatory training and he had to be there all day. He had zero motivation and zero desire to attend. I’d call him a “Training Prisoner”.

We’ve all seen training prisoners or maybe even been one ourselves. They sit in class, arms folded, with a constant look of disgust. They are checked out and possibly even negative. So…how do we as training professionals help? There will always be some training that is mandatory and some participants may have a negative attitude to all courses.

Here are a few things that might help:

Start with a Bang! – What activity could be done “right off the bat” to add excitement? What could be done to help participants understand the importance? Is there some type of competition or challenge? (introductions don’t always have to be the first item on a class agenda.)

Engage Participants – Nobody wants to sit and listen all day. (Even a training prisoner would like to move around a bit.) What types of group activities, field trips, games, role-plays, videos, etc. could we do? What about asking for personal stories that relate to certain topics. Most people like to talk about themselves

Upfront Communication – How was the course announced? Was it announced in a way that made it seem mandatory or was it a perk/personal development? This initial communication can make or break a course. The course should be portrayed as an opportunity to grow and learn. A chance to get away and be with fellow colleagues (network).

Time Commitment – Make the course as short as possible. People as busy and if they are not at their desk things are not getting done.

In the end if a participant isn’t motivated, he/she won’t learn anything. The training course for that person was a waste of time. What else could be done to help?

From ASTD LinkedIn discussion
Steve Klubertanz:
“Pay very close attention during student introductions at the beginning of class. It’s there you can learn a lot about what they truly want from the session, even if they were forced to attend.”
“I have observed people’s negative outlooks disappear just by acknowledging their feelings and reassuring them that I understand their position.”

---

(View our eLearning Games, Flash Interactions, PowerPoint Backgrounds, and eLearning Templates)

Is Classroom Training More Credible than Online Training?

Recently at a round-table discussion about eLearning in the Commercial Lending industry an interesting point surfaced periodically: “Why is classroom training perceived as being more credible than online training?”

I think that this varies a bit by industry (and commercial banking is not known to be pioneers in the latest technology) but many people believe that classroom training is the “best way”. E-Learning is acceptable as a “second-best” option but will not work as well as a classroom session. In fact the only reason why they may “settle” for an online solution is to save time and money.

Why does this perception exist?

Here are a few perceptions of Classroom training that might lead someone to think that it’s more credible (allow they might not be correct):

• Paying for Flights and Meals: It can get expensive to bring participants into a classroom. Maybe this is seen as a vote of confidence in the classroom because a company is willing to spend money and time to bring employees in. Showing that they are willing to put out $$ may portray to employees that it’s important.
• That’s how I Learned: Classroom sessions are how most people learned when they got their university degree. Online schools and degrees have not typically the same weight/prestige as traditional universities.
• I’m Present in a Room: Participants are sitting in a room and I can see them. It must be better than them staring at a computer somewhere.
• Yes…They Were There: A trainer can certify that a person actually arrived. Yes they had buns in a seat.
• The Message Was Delivered: Management can ensure that a person stood up and told everyone what needed to be said.
• Comments and Discussions: Participants have the opportunity to personally see and discuss topics with others. They can network and connect faces and names.
• Online Training is Just Reading: Unfortunately some online courses are bad…they just put pages in an interface and let participants read. This was especially true in 5-8 years ago. Some people have never had a good learning experience with a true online course and don’t know the potential.

In the early days of eLearning it seemed that the goal was just to recreate the classroom in an electronic format. That is no longer the case. I think that the attempt now is to use the strengths of both.

Overall, my round-table discussion ended with a consensus that blended learning could really be the best of both worlds. Both online and classroom have inherent strengths and can complement each other in many ways.

What do you think?  Is classroom training perceived as more credible and superior in your organization? Why or why not?

UPDATE:

Discussion points from Training and Development LinkedIn Group:

“There could be a couple of reasons -

1. More engagement and feedback mechanismThere is more experiential learning atmosphere
2. The question asked and the answers discussed could open up a lot of perspectives
3. There is more of the human connect, considering the fact that we are after all,flesh and blood of emotions
4. Online learning is too straight jacketed” – Dewalker Basnet

Point from Learning, Eduction, and Training Professionals LinkedIn Group:

“Bad training will always lack credibility while good training will always add value.

Whether it is delivered face to face or online is irrelevant……that is only the medium. I am assuming that professional trainers will choose the appropriate method.

Too many people are getting hooked up with the approach and they lose focus on the objectives, how to measure effectiveness, keeping learning pragmatic amongst other things.” – Tony Park

Point from eLearn LinkedIn Group:

“Some of the arguments that classroom experience is far better is the ability to cross communicate in the classroom. I have found that if you present a problem or issue and engage the classroom in a groupthink experiment, you engage the students to come up with innovative and creative ideas. This in turn engages the attention span of a student in the classroom.” – Jason Miller

“Classroom learning is given more credibility than on-line/distance learning. I believe that the reason includes the greater impact information makes on the learner when more senses are involved in the learning process. In a classroom, learners have the opportunity to use tactile as well as clear visual and auditory stimulation. Discussions are more easily and naturally facilitated. Visuals and audio on line are fed through a medium which tends to “dull” them, somewhat like watching a play through a window. Tactile stimulation is not readily available.” – Caroline Silver

---

(Check out amazing eLearning Games, Flash Interactions, PowerPoint Backgrounds, and eLearning Templates)