Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays from Vretta to you and your family! What could be better than the gift of understanding? Vretta helps transform a student’s learning experience and teaches skills for life.

Face-to-Face Training vs. E-Learning

‘’Change’’ has become a mantra for literally every CEO who wants to leave a lasting impact in the way businesses have traditionally been run. This push towards transformational change within organizations, to evolve into industry leaders, has led to the constant need for employee training. From front-line sales and support to leadership teams in almost every vertical, organizations are looking to invest in their human capital.

Training may involve soft-skills, software, product knowledge, budgeting, etc. with the common objective of witnessing excellent return on investments made. With the constant need for sustainable and ongoing training, face-to-face training is becoming a bottleneck in this organizational change initiative. The table below produced by Vretta, a transformational learning company, enumerates the differences between face-to-face training and e-learning.

	Face-to-face Training	E-learning
Impact of learning materials	Mainly depends on the trainer.  Materials used are mostly animated PowerPoint presentations. Sometimes props are used.		With the advent of emerging technologies, materials can be tailored-made to provide high user engagement by using adaptive- and mastery- based learning methods.
Accessibility	Needs to be at a scheduled time and place. This calls for numerous localized training events making the training initiative expensive.		Self-paced learning. Learners can access the resources anywhere at any time.
Number of users	Limited number of users during any particular training session.		Unlimited number of users can access the system.
Scalability	Scaling is a challenge as trainers at different locations need to be trained to deliver the desired training experience.		The initial investment is in designing highly effective training modules that can be used for many years and that users can access from anywhere.
Trainer to student ratio	To get the most out of the trainer, classes contain as many users (generally 50 – 70) reducing the impact of the training.		1 : 1 through collaborative approaches.
Consistency of training	Largely depends on the trainer.		Consistent.
Interaction	Depending on the size of the class and the training style of the trainer. Collaborative training methods have been tried many times. However, ensuring that all trainers continue using these methods is a very challenging task.		Material can be created in such a way that users interact with the system all the time through engaging learning objects and mastery meters. Leaners cannot progress through the training session being passive learners. Constant activity through interactive assessment tools effectively built into the training material ensures high retention levels.
Employees buy-in	Employees are used to this training method and don’t require too much buy in.		For the success of this training, it is critical to get employees buy-in from the outset which will include endorsements from senior management.
ROI	Trainer’s fees are high. Additionally there are costs associated with booking rooms, employees working time, food, etc.  which reduce the ROI. Due to challenge of achieving a collaborative approach in the training, learners view these sessions as a “break from work” rather than a professional development program leading to reduced retention levels.		Inexpensive given that it is highly scalable and can be used over many years.  When the modules are carefully designed and the learning is mandated and tracked, this learning style has proven to significantly improve retention levels.