E-Learning In Europe
Interview with Jane Massy, consultant, analyst, and co-author of The European E-Learning Market report.
Does the European e-learning picture look similar to what’s happen in the United States? If different, how so?
Massy: Adoption patterns in U.S.-based companies have been different than those in the EU. Such countries as the United Kingdom have followed patterns somewhat similar to the United States, but many countries have quite different training ecosystems and the links between training and employment differ markedly. For example, in Germany, training is planned around specific occupational profiles and sector-based employment needs that are agreed on by social partners, such as education/training authorities, employers in the same sector, and unions. If someone wants to work in those occupations, they participate in training that's common across the entire sector.
In addition, decisions about training doesn't happen at the individual employee or company level. These countries recognize that changes in training requirements need to happen fast and be more adaptable and flexible. Nonetheless, the view in most countries is that training should be at the highest standard for everyone and must be linked to sector-based requirements. All agree that it's necessary to have clear and strong links between the training and specific occupations.
In this type of employment/training ecosystem, e-learning is less likely to be adopted unilaterally by single companies (although this has occurred in some multinational firms). This means that e-learning adoption may be slower to take hold, but more likely to be widespread once adopted. Analysts are starting to see proof of that in certain sectors and occupations in northern Europe. Rather than individual adoption, we're seeing systemic change in, for example, engineering-related industries such as the automotive sector. What makes this really interesting is that technology adoption in somewhere such as Germany is more closely linked to real and widespread employment and occupational changes and less likely to be tied to economic downturns.
Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, which operates more like the United States, decisions on training occur more frequently at the company level and there are tighter links between training and job tasks. Throughout the 2001-2002 economic downturn, the UK showed signs of significant reductions in spending both on e-learning and traditional training. That pattern wasn't repeated, however, among the respondents from Germany. In the case of the latter, spending on traditional training did decrease slightly in 2001 and 2002 but spending on e-learning increased significantly.
Are certain countries using e-learning more than others? If so, why do you think that is?
Massy: In addition to the above, there are other factors that influence the adoption of e-learning. For example, overall adoption of ICTs among workplaces in countries across Scandinavia has been much higher than other EU countries. Across Scandinavia, it's clear that the adoption of ICTs has included use of technology for training and professional development. On the other hand, there have been high levels of public push behind the adoption of ICTs in the last two years in Italy where penetration rates on most indicators have been lower than the other three big EU countries. Likewise, some countries, including Denmark, Norway, and Belgium, have focused their attention on innovation in public training systems using technology in initial training.
Both U.S. and European projections forecast a slow-down in off-the-shelf content? Is that due to quality issues or are resources depleted by mass expenditures such as an LMS?
Massy: I think the slow down in off-the-shelf solutions has to do with a recognition that you can't commoditize training. In Europe, there has been far less adoption of e-learning libraries. Mass generic content often doesn't fit with training systems in many countries, and research and anecdotal evidence suggests that many early adopters have now learned that generic content has little or no appeal to most employees. This is in addition to the need to recognize cultural and language diversity, which makes the economic arguments for mass content somewhat redundant. Most employers know that they need content that's related to the specific jobs, tasks, and environments in which their staff work.
The decrease in deployment also reflects the poor quality of the pedagogical (instructional design) approach of much off-the-shelf content--even when media values have been high. Active, participatory, tailored, personalized, job-related learning seems far more likely to be deployed and effective for improving performance. That's not to say, however, that there isn't and won't be a place for some off-the-shelf e-learning. Instead, it will have a particular place in the learning canon rather than act as a central element.
Is there as much confusion about LMSs and LCMSs in Europe as in the United States?
Massy: Probably, although it was difficult to pin-point from the survey results. In two separate questions, respondents were asked whether they had purchased an LMS or an LCMS. Some organizations replied positive to both questions. It was difficult to note whether that was the result of confusion, though. Analysis of the data reveals that some respondents were actually purchasing both systems in a relatively short (two-year) time period.
Adoption of LMSs and LCMSs in EU countries has been slower than in U.S.-based countries. I think the slower and/or later adoption of these solutions by EU countries has probably given buyers time to gain a better understanding of the advantages and downside of both solutions. It also affords them an opportunity to learn from the experiences of early adopters, especially in the very large companies.
Growth for these two solutions appears healthy--not just in the EU but also in other countries. This growth reiterates that the state of the economy doesn't necessarily have a direct impact on investment in training and e-learning.
Are standards playing a strong role in EU-based e-learning developments and with suppliers?
Massy: We didn't ask questions in the survey about standards, but I know from my own work that there appears much less concern to immediately adopt standards such as SCORM. But there's a great deal of discussion and debate--especially in the public systems--about interoperability and multilingualism. In addition, I think Europe is showing more leadership in understanding the educational dimensions of what are largely technical standards. In addition, there are many organizations and institutions working on approaches that provide a bridge between education and training practice and technical standards, such as the work being done under the leadership of the Dutch Open University on Educational Modeling language. Everyone in e-learning agrees that interoperability is essential, and a great deal of the work of IEEE LOM has been contributed by Europeans, as well as to the different groups in the IMS Project.
Among EU countries, does there seem to be more government involvement in standards or e-learning initiatives in general?
Massy: Without question. There's a huge range of activities and publicly funded initiatives relating to e-learning. These activities cover everything from participating in and leveraging expertise about standards to funding research into the impact of technology on learning and performance and its uses with different social and occupational groups. Part of the eEurope initiative agreed to by the heads of government in 2000 had a significant focus on e-learning. There's agreement among government officials and funding is provided at the national- and EU-level for initiatives in research and supporting adoption.
Did you find any statistics in your research that surprised you?
Massy: The only surprise was in relation to wireless and mobile technologies. The results show only a tiny percentage of overall training expenditure on these technologies to deliver learning but a significant percentage of people said that they were either already or planning early to use these technologies to deliver learning. Other than that, most of the data confirmed what I had intuitively believed or had learned from other research, empirical and anecdotal evidence.