Introducing the Learning Value Index (LVI)

Introducing the Learning Value Index (LVI) for Training Modalities

As technology offers up ever-expanding opportunities for training, businesses and organisations continue to struggle to find the most effective training methods, balancing learning effectiveness with cost-efficiency. Without the right information, costs often outweigh the learning in commissioning training to meet the needs of students. This means that the learning is often delivered in the wrong modality and the desired learning outcomes are not achieved. To redress this balance and to put learning at the centre of the equation I am working on a concept I call the Learning Value Index (LVI).

What is the Learning Value Index?

The LVI is a comparative metric designed to evaluate different training modalities—in this case live classroom (live with the trainer plus access to on-line support for pre/in/post learning), hybrid learning (hybrid environment such as provided by OneRoom from X2O Media including on-line pre/in/post learning), and facilitated online training (including pre/in/post learning)—based on learning retention and associated costs. In reality any learning modality can be evaluated using this same methodology but in this case we are comparing just these three.

How It Works

In this example, I have included four factors for each modality:

1. Learning Retention: This is subjective based on personal experience where follow-up research on learning retention was included. For the purposes of LVI, 100% represents optimal retention achieved with specific content.
2. Trainer Costs: The same amount was used in each modality to ensure consistency. In the real world, training periods for each modality may vary, changing cost but will also impact potential learning retention.
3. Travel Costs (Trainer): For the trainer, it is a fixed fee (in this case €600) and was charged for the Live & Hybrid categories only.
4. Travel Costs (Student): This is an estimate for 12 students using the same figure as used for the Trainer for travel to a central venue for the Live category only.

We then calculate the cost per student for each modality where learning retention is included and use a common factor to create the Learning Value Index (LVI) to a scale of 100.

Please note that capital, design, subscription and other costs have not been included here.

Key Findings (Subject to Further Research):

• Live Classroom : Highest learning retention at 100%, but with significant costs and the lowest LVI.
• Hybrid Learning : Retention at 60%, offering the best value with the highest LVI.
• Facilitated Online (including on-line pre/in/post learning): The lowest retention at 20%, and moderate LVI.

My Interpretation: The choice of training modality should align with the value or importance of the desired change.

If the goal is to achieve significant buy-in, real change, or up-skilling, live training is the gold standard, offering the highest learning retention. However, it comes at a higher cost. For introducing ideas, starting conversations, and guiding thinking towards specific goals, hybrid learning is ideal. It provides a balanced approach with high retention and cost-efficiency, reflected in its top Learning Value Index (LVI) score. If the aim is to raise awareness, stimulate individual motivation, check understanding, or simply document that information has been provided, facilitated online training does the job. It’s less crucial that every participant fully engages, making it a cost-effective option for these purposes.

Each modality serves a distinct purpose, and selecting the right one can significantly impact the effectiveness and value of the training program.

Of course, blending the learning with a mix of these modalities over a period changes everything. Studies such as those conducted by Means et al. (2013) and the U.S. Department of Education (2010) have shown that blended learning environments, which combine online and face-to-face instruction, tend to produce better outcomes than purely face-to-face or online learning environments alone. That is why collaborative tools such as Klaxoon, a Wrike company and their application in pre, in, and post learning across all modalities are proving so powerful in increasing learning retention.

What About Online Only? Online-only training (avatar-led, drag & drop, quizzes, reading) is not considered here. My experience is that learning retention in this medium is 10% or less. Seriously, I have done hundreds of these online courses, have certificates to prove it, yet can’t even tell you what they were about. Even though it is cheap to create and deliver, if next to nothing is retained, then like a car that doesn't go, it simply fills space and is worthless. That’s a bit harsh, though. There is a place for it in pre-learning or in contexts where there is exceptionally high student motivation (where learners will do additional work or personal research) or for introducing procedural changes for informational purposes (tick box). However, where the learning is important or carries the expectation of change or action beyond information, it is not a medium that ensures effective learning.

Let's Collaborate: I acknowledge that the data I have presented here is based on my own subjective studies and requires further objective research. This is where I need your help. I would love to hear about your opinions, experiences ideas and any data you have to further enhance this model. Let's start the conversation and work to build a better model for better more informed training decisions.

References for Further Reading:

• Means et al. (2013) Summary
• U.S. Department of Education (2010) Report
• SpringerLink Meta-Analysis

Looking forward to engaging with you all on this journey to enhance our understanding and application of the technologies and choices that are shaping the future of learning.