The title of your talk sounds like you've carried out research. How did you decide to compare the two approaches?

Keith Quinn: The social-service sector in Scotland is in the process of addressing a fairly challenging workforce-development agenda resulting from the introduction of service regulation and workforce regulation. These changes were prompted by the desire of government and the profession to improve the quality of services to the public and increase public protection through increasing skills levels of staff.

Although the learning landscape in the sector is very mixed, with education and training opportunities covering further and higher education, as well as encompassing a wide variety of employer-run in-service learning for the majority of staff in the sector, the primary qualifications are work based and delivered and assessed in the workplace.

Therefore, since the early 1990s there has been a strong tradition of authentic assessment of skill development in the sector through the delivery of Scottish Vocational Qualifications. This approach to assessment has existed alongside a reliance on classroom-based approaches to knowledge acquisition. However, increasing financial and logistical difficulties are prompting employers to consider alternative approaches to learning delivery.

Little research is available in the form of comparative research regarding technology-supported learning versus "classroom-based" learning, particularly for work-based learning. Therefore, my project examined precisely this area: comparing traditional classroom / input-based training for staff in a given topic away from the workplace with technology-enhanced learning delivered in the workplace, on mobile devices, as close to the realities of the job role as possible as an alternative delivery model.

The outcomes would be of great interest to employers in the sector as they search for effective and cost-efficient models to deliver ongoing learning and development opportunities to their staff.

How did you do the research? What was it you actually investigated? Whom did you query, when did the study take place, and what were the modalities you used?

Keith Quinn: The aim of the research was to investigate the impact of eLearning on learning transfer in workforce development. We compared traditional classroom / input-based training for staff in a given topic away from the workplace with eLearning delivered in the workplace on mobile devices - as close to the realities of the job role as possible - as an alternative delivery model. Consequently, the objective of this research is to answer the following questions

• How do learners perceive the effectiveness of the learning activity, in each group? (i.e. TEL situated learning and classroom-based learning)
• Is there a perceived improvement in application of learning to practice where it has been delivered in the workplace from the viewpoint of learners and/or their line managers?
• Does the technology used facilitate or obstruct learning?
• Do learners retain more of their learning using the TEL situated approach as opposed to the classroom-based approach?
• Do the use of eLearning and a mobile-delivery platform mitigate the logistical difficulties of engaging employees in learning and development in the organisation?

Thus in this study, the "classroom" group left their workplaces and attended the organisation's one-day course on "Violence, Aggression and Personal Safety" in the Departmental training centre. The course runs for a full working day, and employees return to their workplace the following day.


The technology-enhanced learning group followed the same programme of learning as the classroom group, with the Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP) used as the delivery platform for technology-enhanced learning (TEL) in the workplace coupled with Connected Education's "Second Sight" application to deliver the host organisation's mandatory one-day "Violence, Aggression and Personal Safety at Work" course. This allowed the researcher to gather evidence of the efficacy of the eLearning approach to delivery and determine whether or not the reported benefits of situated learning are evident. This latter group had access to the PSPs for a full working week and were free to work with the materials at any time during that week.

What were the major findings?

Keith Quinn:

1. The technology-enhanced learning (situated-learning) approach was more effective than the training centre ("Classroom") approach.
2. Learners (and their managers) reported an increased ease of application of learning to practice.
3. The technology used was reported as beneficial or supportive of learning - users were very positive about the sense of control they had over the pace learning.
4. The TEL approach improved retention of information, particularly of detail.
5. The use of mobile technology was seen as having a very positive impact on addressing the logistics of delivering training.

And what are the main conclusions you've reached?

Keith Quinn: At the heart of this project was the intention to compare the effectiveness of technology-enhanced situated learning with traditional, classroom approaches to workforce development. Although small in scale, this project has demonstrated that well-designed technology-enhanced learning delivered in the workplace can be perceived by the learners, and those who manage them, to be as effective as accessing that same learning in a "classroom" or training centre.

Along with the benefits of the TEL approach as described above, there are challenges. One key challenge is alluded to above: working with corporate IT professionals to "open up" their networks to mobile devices to support learning. However, there are other significant challenges. The role of the manager in the learning experience was discussed in some detail previously. In an environment where learning moves more directly to the workplace, the role of the manager becomes pivotal in the learning process.

At the most basic level, this will necessitate their active involvement in securing protected time and space for learning. Beyond this, it can be inferred that by moving learning out of the training centre, there should be an expectation that there will be an increased role for managers in supporting their staff members' learning, providing a "sounding board" where staff members can discuss what they are learning.

Then there is the role of the learning-and-development personnel. The introduction of TEL on a large scale in an organisation can, and arguably should, have a significant impact on the role of the organisation's learning and development staff.

In addition to acquiring skills in designing effective TEL, the role of the learning-and- development professional will shift from delivery of content to facilitation of learning. As is often the case with organisational change, there is likely to be a mixed response to change of this nature. However, the findings of this study would suggest that such change may be desirable in meeting the fiscal and demographic challenges facing the social-service workforce in the future.