Are there any metrics out there to support why you would use the various types of learning strategies, modes, etc. I need some hard numbers that would allow us to communicate to stakeholders why one training method may be more beneficial than the other. My team is trying to change the culture of providing page turner PPT e-presentations. To do this, we will have to communicate hard numbers of why a more interactive training will help our sales reps more than the e-presentations. I have searched everywhere but cannot find anything.

Hi,

I have to say, depending on the content, electronically delivered PPTs may be the most effective solution. I think your best approach would be to measure the current effectiveness of delivered training. What was the need, how was training delivered, was the gap closed? If you can show ineffective gap closure you may have fuel to pilot an alternative solution. Just make sure your alternative can demonstrate improvements in knowledge transfer.

Thanks,
Nick

Hello bpatel,

Your stakeholders' search for hard numbers and single right answers is misguided. Decisions regarding choices of methods and media is grounded in the Development Phase of the Instructional Systems Design model (ISD)...
http://www.nwlink.com/~Donclark/hrd/sat4.html
------------------------------
Different types of learning will require different types of delivery methods.

From ASTD's Training Certificate Program:

As your instructional design begins to take shape, you will return again and again to the learning objectives to ensure that you are on the right path. Your objectives will fall into three types of learning: knowledge (K), skills (S), and attitude (A). Trainers frequently shorten this into the KSA acronym. This is based on Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Knowledge involves the development of intellectual skills. Examples of knowledge include understanding the principles of accounting, knowing the stages of childhood, understanding how interest rates affect the economy, or knowing how to get a book published.

Skill refers to physical movement, coordination, communication, use of motor-skills, and demonstration of all soft skills. Examples of skills learning include the ability to use a digital camera, operate a backhoe, supervise staff, listen effectively, or kick a soccer ball.

Attitude refers to how we deal with things emotionally, such as feelings, motivation, and enthusiasm. Although attitude is not “taught” it may affect an individual’s performance. Trainers sometimes discuss whether it is the learner’s “skill” or “will” that prevents top notch performance. Trainers cannot change attitudes, but they frequently have the opportunity to influence attitudes.

You will use different methods to address the three types of learning.
----------------------------------------------

Entropy,

I completely agree with your post. So far that is the approach we have tried taking. The problem is that our stakeholders want the training out faster than yesterday and the only delivery method that suits their time line is PPT e-presentation. We were hoping that some hard numbers on retention rates would help persuade them to consider more elaborate types of training such as branching scenarios, etc. We did find the following site that provided some numbers.
http://www.2020mds.com/1.3products/1.3.2_pyramid.htm

Any research that claims to demonstrate such metrics is inherently suspect. Let me explain.

I can do training that is experiential and it can fail completely. And the reason may not have anything to do with the experiential nature of the training. Instead, if the performance gap is not a function of knowledge or skills, then ANY kind of training will fail.

I also think you're making this into rocket science. Go before senior managers and using powerpoint, explain to them that you're going to teach them how to play the saxophone (or piano or some other instrument). So them 3 slides and then berate them when they can't play a "C" on the woodwind mouthpiece--they obviously weren't paying attention to the powerpoint! And then excuse your sarcasm and point out that when it comes to a skill--unless the skill is entirely intellectual (and involves no case study, no analysis), than a purely lecture or ppt based approach will ALWAYS fail. It's like saying I'm going to teach you how to drive a car or stay calm when dealing with an angry customer by telling you information--it ignores that skills aren't build by lecture, the only that has potentially happened there is an exchange of information (maybe). So a great deal of your position depends upon what kind of training needs to be done. And then figure out what the cost is (do an ROI analysis) of a ppt training class. Because the comeback by management is "yeah, but the experiential classes take 2 days while a lecture is 2 hours!". Yes, but it's 2 hours that is completely wasted, absolutely no ROI.