Virtual Training: Pros and Cons

(AKA things you didn't know about virtual training)

So having just completed Infrassistance's sixth virtual ITIL Foundation course since the lockdown, I thought I'd share with you some of the positive and less positive aspects of virtual training and indeed some of the aspects of virtual training of which many are unaware.

In many ways, since classroom training has effectively ceased for the time being, the pros and cons of virtual training are to some extent irrelevant since its the only option. However, to those of you wondering to what extent virtual training in lockdown is worthwhile and how it differs, I'd like to share my thoughts and invite any comments from others.

The first thing to say by way of reassurance is that training is one of the few permissible activities an employee who has been furloughed can undertake. Furthermore, it's possibly the BEST thing a furloughed employee can do since it can enhance both their knowledge and their qualifications, making them more useful to their employer and more marketable if they wish to move upwards or onwards.

Clearly there will always be those who find the virtual experience less effective than a real classroom. Granted, its like watching a film instead of a live play so there is to some extent less engagement between the participants, but this does seem to be a generational thing. My experience is that younger folk find it perfectly normal to engage remotely, at least for formal activities such as training.

In terms of exam results and scores our experience at Infrassistance is that there appears to be no discernible difference between a paper-based, classroom exam and an online, proctored exam. I do however, think that the online exam is slightly more challenging for the candidate because there's less ability to write on the question paper, keep notes and compare questions. My advice is therefore to attend with a blank sheet of paper and a pen (rather than a notebook which is much harder to demonstrate to the proctor that there is nothing written therein than a single sheet of paper.) We advise candidates that it is not uncommon that one question can give a clue to another, but this is harder to see when there's only one question on screen at a time.

Another factor to consider is that the backlog of proctored bookings (at least from PeopleCert) is now around three weeks, meaning that ideally, the accredited training organisation (ATO) should be booking candidate exam vouchers at least three weeks in advance to allow candidates to book their exam close to the end of the course if they wish, as many do. It can be very frustrating to take a course in preparation for an exam and then have to wait three weeks to sit the exam.

Nonetheless, the exam can be sat on a 7 x 24 hour basis, a distinct advantage if you happen to be a night owl or reach your intellectual peak at 06:00 perhaps! Furthermore, many candidates like the idea of having time for the course to 'sink in' and allow them time to revise before the exam - there is often otherwise little chance to do so in a classroom.

Another consequence of proctored exams is that each candidate is very likely to get a different exam paper. Not that this should make a difference to the result, but it does obviate the potential to compare your experiences with your fellow delegates afterwards.

From Infrassistance's perspective as an ATO, there are also financial considerations. On the plus side, the trainer does not have any travel, accommodation or subsistence costs, but training remotely in a virtual classroom is somewhat intense and challenging to manage. I therefore have the utmost sympathy for any independent trainers who have been forced to accept a lower rate to run a virtual classroom. I understand that in fact one ATO is actually paying only ￡100 per day to trainers instead of the usual ￡350, and yet not charging delegates any less! If you are a training sponsor, you might indeed validate this point with your proposed ATO since it means that your delegates will likely receive their tuition from only the most desperate trainers unable to find work elsewhere!

But the other financial aspect is that a remote proctored exam has an additional price tag of ￡20.80 (at cost) and might be charged at a lot more than this by less scrupulous ATOs.

However, there are positive financial aspects too. Most obviously, the delegates have no travel, subsistence or accommodation costs. There is another little know wrinkle in the virtual classroom pricing. Since November 2019, PeopleCert have introduced a 'Take 2' option that allows weaker candidates to pre-purchase a much reduced resit. These have to be purchased at the time of buying the voucher (obviously) rather than once the candidate has failed but come at a cost price of just ￡26. Again, the ATOs are entitled to uplift this and many charge as much as ￡80 for this privilege since its still way cheaper than the exam voucher. What few people realise is that while we are in a remote proctored only situation, the ￡26 INCLUDES the remote proctor fee! Therefore if you can find an ATO that offers a Take 2 at cost or close to cost, it's a no-brainer for candidates with less experience who might otherwise be paying as much as ￡250 for a resit from some ATOs.

In respect of the training itself, the trainer is advised to call frequent breaks. Our experience is that breaks of around 10 minutes at approximately 30-minute intervals are ideal with a 30-minute lunch break. This helps to maintain concentration without tiredness and engagement without boredom. And although it might appear to add to the course duration, it actually doesn't because it helps the delegates concentrate, meaning there's less need to re-cover the material.

Another useful device is to engage the delegates with questions or polls to encourage participation. Our experience is that delegates are less likely to ask questions or join discussions, particularly on public courses where they don't know the other delegates. The chance to participate in a poll again engages people.

With regard to the best software, Infrassistance uses Zoom which from our own experience and that of others seems to be the de facto option for professional users. It does not require participants to have an account, is easy to join, allows the same link for multi-day courses and provides the trainer with a virtual background option if you have a fee-paying account. This comes across far more professional than seeing a trainer who is clearly in their spare room with the many audience distractions to see around the walls. Zoom has also recently addressed the security concerns that were raised with a new release.

The delegate experience is also significantly enhanced if the trainer is using a tripod-mounted, HD camera rather than the typically low-res webcam built in to most laptops. In fact the combination of a virtual background and a decent camera comes close to replicating the classroom experience for the delegates.

My last comment is that as an ATO, Infrassistance can now train a client's delegates simultaneously anywhere in the world at no extra cost. For large, multi-national organisations, this means that we can run a virtual classroom to engage their delegates wherever they are and benefit from exchanging ideas and thoughts on the topic. We find this particularly useful in our courses which are taught in a consultative way. By this, I mean that we don't just teach the theory, we put it into the context of the delegates' own environment by relating and discussing the concepts with particular reference to their own organisations. This results in a sharing of ideas, resolution of differences and a more consistent approach to the subject amongst participants sometimes across the world from each other but with the same objectives and culture.

In summary therefore, virtual training works perfectly well and is likely to continue to be popular even after the lockdown, provided that the delegates' expectations are managed and met and the ATO plays by the rules and adopts these positive practices.