This is the fifth and final installment of a series of articles intended to cover eLearning in the maritime industry - what it is, its strengths and its limitations. This last installment highlights some of the limitations of eLearning in the maritime training environment.

Follow this blog.

Share this blog post.

Follow me on Twitter.

Understanding eLearning in Maritime Job Training and Familiarization - Part 5

Introduction

This is the fifth and final installment of a series of articles intended to cover eLearning in the maritime industry - what it is, what are its strengths and what are its limitations.  Part 1 of this series introduced eLearning, talking about what it is, and why it is important that anyone involved in maritime training should do their utmost to understand its strengths and limitations. Part 2 of the series discussed what research has shown us about the strengths of eLearning. Part 3 and part 4 of this series covered some of the practical strengths of eLearning.  It is highly recommended that you read part 1,  part 2, part 3 and part 4 before continuing here.

This final installment (part 5) covers the limitations  of eLearning including in a maritime training context including:

1. Not a replacement for Hands-On Training
2. eLearning Cannot Replace an Instructor
3. eLearning is not a Cure-All for Training Issues
4. eLearning Costs
5. Differences in Learning Styles, and
6. Internet Connectivity in the Maritime Training Environment.

There is no doubt in my mind that eLearning is an important topic for the maritime industry. All of us involved in maritime education, whatever our views on eLearning, are going to have to come to terms with it. We all have a responsibility to understand it, including its strengths and weaknesses. Only by doing so can we can make intelligent decisions as to when to apply it, when not to apply it, how best to take advantage of its greatest strengths, and how to avoid common eLearning pitfalls.

In this series of articles, I am largely going to focus on the application of eLearning to maritime job training and familiarization, but most of my comments will apply equally to eLearning in maritime certification training. I think it behooves all of us involved in maritime training to understand eLearning. It is my hope that this series of articles will play a small part in facilitating that understanding.

The Limitations of eLearning

The previous sections spent a lot of time covering the strengths of eLearning. However, it is just as important to understand the limitations of eLearning when considering its use in maritime training. Like any powerful tool, it can provide an advantage if it is applied to utilize its strengths. However, it may be no help at all (and in fact may even be detrimental) if applied in a way for which it is not well suited. The cliché “the right tool for the right job” comes to mind here. So what is the “job” for which eLearning is not the “right tool”? What are the limitations of eLearning?

Not a Replacement for Hands-On Training

First - recall the discussion of “knowledge” vs “skills” in the preceding section on eLearning strengths. eLearning is an excellent tool for teaching knowledge, including the fundamental knowledge on which skills are built. However, it is a poor tool for teaching most skills. There are a few exceptions - the most notable one being simulation environments (which technically are a form of eLearning). But simulation training is an exception. When a skill needs to be mastered, there is no substitute for hands-on learning.

Therefore, in maritime training where both skills and knowledge are required, it is important that we apply the correct technique. Practise, alone, cannot teach the required knowledge. eLearning, alone, cannot teach the required skills. This makes maritime training especially suited to a blended learning approach (combining eLearning with hands-on training). Not only are a wider variety of learning styles addressed, but the best techniques can be employed for each of the knowledge and skills which must be assimilated. But the comment stands that eLearning can never be a complete replacement for hand-on learning.

eLearning Cannot Replace an Instructor

Unfortunately, some organizations which employ eLearning believe that they can create a high-quality training experience without the use of an instructor or course facilitator. This is generally not the case. It is true that in an eLearning experience the facilitator takes on a somewhat different role than an instructor in a classroom-based course. However, some person is still needed to guide, motivate, and answer questions. This person is also critical in accommodating trainees who have learning needs which are not anticipated by the learning materials. In this case, there is no substitute for a  human at the front of the class or on the other end of the communication forum to listen, reflect and suggest.

This is particularly true for stand-alone CD-based courses with no web-based component. Those courses are centered around the CD and generally provide no interaction either with peer trainees nor with an experienced facilitator. As such, they are sometimes little better than a book for training purposes.

An improved, but still suboptimal situation is when the eLearning course does not have a facilitator, but at least does provide a trainee community to facilitate peer learning. In this case, it has a distinct advantage over self-study using a book or a CD because it provides a way for trainees to learn from, and benefit from, the knowledge of their peers. However, any learning experience which does not have a facilitator or instructor, whether it is computer-based or not, is likely to be less satisfying and less effective than one with.  

eLearning is Not a Cure-All

It is important to note that taking a poor course and putting it on-line does not turn it into a good course. It is now just a bad course, on-line. Likewise for instructors. A poor instructor who becomes a facilitator of an on-line course is now simply a poor facilitator. There are many examples of poor on-line courses just as there are many examples of poor classroom-based courses. It is just as easy to create one as the other.

Although this observation may seem obvious, it is important to highlight because many organizations, when they decide to employ eLearning, tend to focus more on the method of delivery and less on the pedagogical quality of the course. eLearning can be an excellent way to improve access, learning outcomes and experiences. However, the same consideration for pedagogy must be devoted to the design of the course as if the course was to be delivered on-line.

Cost Reduction

The issue of eLearning costs was covered above in the eLearning strengths section. However, it is worth reiterating here because there is often a misconception about the costs of eLearning. Simply said, a high-quality eLearning course (with a course facilitator) tends to be no less expensive to deliver than its classroom-based alternative.  There are some small cost differences. On the one hand, a course facilitator can usually accommodate more students on-line than a classroom-based instructor. On the other hand, it can cost more to initially set up an eLearning course.

Those who claim that eLearning is far less expensive than classroom-based courses make that claim for one of the following reasons:

1. Because the cost of travel and accommodation is removed when using eLearning. This is legitimate in those cases where there is a need for the trainees to travel to the classroom.
2. Because the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure (classrooms) is typically a lot less than the cost of maintaining eLearning infrastructure (LMS license costs). This, too is usually a legitimate claim.
3. Because they are comparing the cost of classroom-based instruction against CD-based instruction or web-based instruction which is not supported by a course facilitator. This will indeed result in a cost savings, but the comparison is unfair. The experiences and outcomes delivered by any course done in the absence of a facilitator are likely to be poorer than those done with.

So - there can be cost differences, but each implementation is different and therefore there is no single correct answer to this question. In general, the delivery of a good eLearning experience, once you exclude infrastructure and travel costs, is approximately the same as for classroom-based instruction.

Learning Styles

Some individual trainees learn better in a classroom experience than they do on-line. Those students are gong to suffer to some degree if no classroom-based course is available for them. There are two points to be made on this subject.

First, the number of students who learn better in class is roughly equal to the number of students who actually are able to learn better on-line. So whether you opt for eLearning or classroom-based learning, you are creating a disadvantage for some students (and an advantage for other students).

Secondly, this is an argument for some form of blended learning where some parts of the training are done via eLearning, and other parts are done in person. Blended learning tends to have better outcomes than either in-class or eLearning, partly because a wider variety of trainee learning styles are addressed by the combination than could be addressed by either mode individually.

Connectivity

Most eLearning environments rely on internet connectivity. In fact, most traditional learning management systems assume that trainees will always have connectivity. This can be a problem in maritime training where trainees are sometimes on-board without such connectivity.

Fortunately, this is less of a problem than it was in the past. First, there are learning management systems which do not assume full-time internet connectivity. Most notably, the LMS created by the company I work for (MarineLMS) makes all critical functionality available on-line or on-paper in order to support mariners wherever they are training. Secondly, there is an accelerating trend toward having on-board internet. New technologies and reduced costs mean that this trend will continue to accelerate. The implications for eLearning are obvious.

Having said that, there is no question that, for now, eLearning cannot truly be as “anywhere/anytime” as its potential implies for those who spend the majority of their time on vessels without internet connectivity. But then again, it remains much more available “anywhere and anytime” than classroom-based courses.

Conclusion

It is my hope that this article has helped provide an initial understanding of what eLearning is, what its advantages are, and what its limitations are - all in a maritime training context.  Used correctly, there is no doubt that it can improve trainee experiences and training outcomes. It can also help training management make training and assessment more objective and standardized, and can provide important metrics which can be used to form the basis of a program of continuous improvement in training. Having said that, it is not a cure-all for all training shortcomings, and must be applied intelligently if its potential advantages are to be realized.

# # #

About The Author:

Murray Goldberg is the founder and President of Marine Learning Systems (www.marinels.com), the creator of MarineLMS - the first learning management system specifically for maritime industry training. Murray began research in eLearning in 1995 as a faculty member of Computer Science at the University of British Columbia. He went on to create WebCT, the world’s first commercially successful LMS for higher education; serving 14 million students in 80 countries. Now, in Marine Learning Systems, Murray is hoping to play a part in advancing the art and science of learning in the maritime industry.

Follow this blog.

Share this blog post.

Follow me on Twitter.