Key Factors in Synchronous Delivery
By Jennifer Hofmann

New technology means new rules. I keep learning every day--and every day I find that I need to reexamine the validity of what I've known to be true.

For example, I was recently asked to conduct an evaluation of an organization's first synchronous classroom initiative. I started the project on the first day of delivery and was surprised at what I experienced.

Eighteen learners from around the U.S. logged into the virtual classroom. The program ran four consecutive days, six hours per day. The technical content was delivered primarily in a lecture format, and the presentation included text-heavy slides--some very difficult to read. The instructor had been practicing with the synchronous software for less than a week. Built-in tools like chat, whiteboards, and polling went largely unused.

It seemed like a disaster in the making. Conventional wisdom suggests that programs shouldn't be longer than two hours at a sitting. Graphics should be engaging and include some color. The amount of screen text should be minimized, and graphics should be used whenever possible. Interactivity should be frequent and varied. I was convinced that few participants, if any, would make it to the final day of class. I clenched my teeth, expecting disappointing results.

My first surprise was that everyone stayed logged on all day. My next surprise was that everyone attended day two, day three, and day four. Instead of complaining about the length of the days, they claimed the program wasn't long enough. The program evaluations left no doubt that the program was a success. I didn't understand what went wrong to make everything go right--but I was determined to find out.

I conducted 30-minute phone interviews with about half of the participants. Here's a summary of what I learned.

Interaction depends on where you stand. The more knowledgeable learners felt that the interaction was enough to keep them engaged. However, learners less familiar with the content felt the interaction wasn't adequate.

Bring on the experts. Access to subject matter experts (SMEs) proved a powerful draw throughout the learning experience. Participants indicated they greatly valued the opportunity to learn from SMEs and would have stayed online even longer to take advantage of their knowledge.

Motivation is everything. Many of the participants worked at home, hundreds of miles from the nearest corporate training facility. Had they not been able to participate in the synchronous program, many would not have received the learning. The opportunity to participate in the program was a strong motivation.

Four days? That's OK! I asked participants if they would have preferred the program to be taught for three hours a day over eight days instead of the marathon four-day format. Without exception, they answered no. It was easier and less disruptive to attend for an entire day, they reported.

The respondents provided many suggestions for improvement. Among them:

• Lunch breaks should be at least one hour long, and all breaks should be better planned to accommodate participants' different time zones.
• Ground rules should be established and enforced, including such items as keeping the phone muted when not speaking, using the "raise hand" feature to ask a question, and sending a chat note to alert the instructor when leaving class momentarily.
• Participant materials should be mailed to students ahead of time, and asynchronous exercises and case studies should be built into the program.

Would I design a synchronous class like this, or put faith in the success of similar endeavors? I don't think so. It still breaks the rules, and the fact that it was successful suggests how much more effective it could be with better instructional design.

I learned a different set of lessons with a Seattle company that used a synchronous product called Placeware. A middle-of-the-road synchronous platform, Placeware uses a separate phone line (or phone bridge) for two-way audio or one-way voice-over-IP (VOIP) audio. Only the instructor can use the whiteboard, and applications can be shown to students, but not shared among them.

This category, which includes similar products from vendors including HorizonLive and NetPodium, has some distinct advantages over more elaborate systems. For one thing, client software doesn't need to be installed on the learner's computer, alleviating IT concerns and allowing the software to be platform-independent.

I had been working under the assumption that less robust features meant a less interactive learning environment. I also believed that limited audio capabilities led to problems. If one-way VOIP audio was used, I thought the program would be limited to lecture--with its attendant passivity and low retention. If a phone bridge was used, learners would behave as if it was a conference call, talking out of turn and interrupting the speakers. Attention would focus on the audio-based communication, and the visual medium--the Internet-delivered classroom--would become secondary.

The design team, consisting of an instructional designer, media developer, stage director, and subject matter expert, spent two days redesigning a traditional sales-related program. We attacked the problem using a broadcast design model and designed as if we were producing an interactive television training program. The team created ground rules to manage the conference call and constantly redirected attention to the screen content or participant materials. The program was grouped into five one-hour modules that focused on reviewing and implementing the concepts learned in the asynchronous exercises assigned between live sessions. We designed exercises to bring the sales staff together--via phone calls between the live sessions--to coach one another with feedback. Accelerated learning techniques were scattered throughout the program to increase learner retention and create a more rewarding experience.

The result was a dynamic, interactive series of sessions that took advantage of the knowledge and skills already held by our audience. The online face-to-face time was maximized and valuable, and the asynchronous homework assignments were critical to the success of the live program.

I emerged from the experience feeling that this program was more effective than a traditional classroom experience. The modularized one-hour chunks gave our participants time to process and understand information before moving on to new content. And the technology became almost transparent in the learning experience. To me, that's always the sign of a successful technology based program: The focus is the content, not the delivery medium.

Published: February 2000