Juki, I am not aware of explicit case law regarding the inadaquacies of e-learning, but there are findings and recommendations arising from the various reports of the BP Texas City Refinery Disaster that criticise the over-emphasis on e-learning. One of the recommendations of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) to BP was "to improve the operator training program. At a minimum, require face-to-face training conducted by personnel with process-specific knowledge and experience who can assess trainee competency, and training on recognizing and handling abnormal situations including the use of simulators or similar training tools. The above recommendation was based on the finding that BP in a cost cutting excercise reduced the training budget and replced e-learning with face to face training.

Juki, So you don't rate Open University for people doing degrees (and other courses) then? That in effect is e-learning isn't it? There are many distance based courses and there have been for years. Just becuase you are not there in person doesn't mean you can't learnt effectively. Some may say that they learn more effectively when not sat in front of a dull tutor, on uncomfortable chairs, in a hot room and with too few breaks. Assessment doesn't have to be by tick box learning either. For the record I have never done e-learning but I don't have a problem with it. I know people who it has suited well. It is an accessible form of learning for many who can't attend courses in person or to allow a more flexible learning approach and there is no reason to stick to the traditional face to face model IMO.

Doh!!! I took advice from other posters and installed an IE Spell Checker, but it didn't notice 'basis' instead of 'basic'... Need a Grammar Checker as well I think!

As I discussed in the HSW article on e-learning, it really depends on two things as to if it's acceptable: 1) Does the content require practical demonstration of skills (driving, climbing, operating a lathe, etc.)? 2) Is it necessary to assess the student continually (e.g. by observation)? If both are "no", then effective e-learning is perfectly possible, provided it's implemented correctly. We *can* prove the person at the keyboard is who they say they are to legally-admissible standards. We *can* assess cognitive understanding far better with software than with a paper exam, and well-built e-learning content is proven to deliver better levels of retention and understanding than Powerpoint Guy in a stuffy classroom. However, sending people a Youtube link with a note saying "watch dis and Ur a crane driver" is evidentially stupid, just as a fully-theoretical course in a classroom can't turn you into one either. Remember that e-learning is used by the largest training provider on the planet (the US Government), but quietly so. You don't see much promo coverage in the press, but equally you don't hear anyone complaining it's second-rate compared to the old system - and if they were, trust me the press would leap on it.

If e-learning means staring at a set of slides on your laptop, then yes. However e-learning is any use of technology to deliver content - even using PowerPoint in a classroom is e-learning. REMOTE learning, where the candidate sits someplace else, can still be interactive on a grouped level if the instructor is good at his/her job. You can use combinations of audio and video telepresence (phone conferencing, screen sharing, Mingleverse and Second Life) to put people together so they can see each other, talk amongst themselves, etc. - I agree you can't get the same level of banter over a coffee, but that's not part of the training program - that's just being social. I for one don't intend to fly to LA next month just to give a 30 minute talk, and neither would the audience expect me to. THEY are all in the same building, it's just me that's on a video screen. I can still tell bad jokes, but with one less airplane involved the client can save more in carbon credits than the course is costing them to run. Can I tell if someone wanders out the room? No - but their manager can as she's in there with them.

Elearning for shop floor employees is appropriate, cost and time effective, Face to face is appropriate for staff with more responsibility for other employees ie managers, supervisors etc. where a company needs to prepare that person for more of a proactive role on the issue ie health & safety. A mixture of both in an organisation delivering appropriate training to different levels within that oprganisation is the way to go. By way of example I deliver IOSH managing safely face to face to client's first line managers and above and offer a suite of 26 health & safety titles online to their general employee populace. The online system delivers effective elementary training well within training budgets and is seen as exceptional value for money.

Hi there, thanks for your response, do you have a reference for the article?

Hi Jay, useful info, thank you. I am not aware of explicit case law regarding the inadaquacies of e-learning, but there are findings and recommendations arising from the various reports of the BP Texas City Refinery Disaster that criticise the over-emphasis on e-learning. One of the recommendations of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) to BP was "to improve the operator training program. At a minimum, require face-to-face training conducted by personnel with process-specific knowledge and experience who can assess trainee competency, and training on recognizing and handling abnormal situations including the use of simulators or similar training tools. The above recommendation was based on the finding that BP in a cost cutting excercise reduced the training budget and replced e-learning with face to face training.