Corporate eLearning Acceptance: the role of Context and Communication

1. Corporate eLearning Acceptance: the role of Context and Communication Chiara Succi & Lorenzo Cantoni University of Lugano ICELW 2008

2. Agenda • Research Problem & Design • Literature Review • Map of eLearning Acceptance (MeLA) • Field studies • Conclusions Design Review MeLA Field Conclusions

3. Introduction • Fast integration of ICT and their impact onto society • Computer literacy & employability • Knowledge as a key factor • “Just in time” workforce (Rifkin, 2001) • Importance of eLearning in the knowledge society Design

4. Research Problem • Dropout is the “Achilles heel” of eLearning (Martinez, 2003) or its embarrassing secret and “taboo” (Frankola, 2001) • Dropouts rates are at least 10 to 20% higher than in their face-to-face counterparts • Lack of sound, rigorous models specifically focused on learners’ acceptance and satisfaction with eLearning Design

5. Research questions • Q1: How is the eLearning acceptance process structured? • Q2: Which is the role of the context in eLearning acceptance? • Q3: Which is the role of communication in eLearning acceptance? Design

6. Methodology • Q1 has been answered through the analysis of the literature • a conceptual map • Q2 has been answered through literature review and case studies • Q3 has been answered through case studies and two surveys • list of variables and a taxonomy • final acceptance index Design

7. Alenia (IT), Esprinet (IT), Banca Intesa (IT) Kraft (UK), Alcoa (Australia) Fiat Auto (IT), Ernst & Young (IT), JetBlue (USA), Homedepot (USA) Design

8. Theoretical Framework • From the literature • Innovation acceptance • Diffusion theories (Rogers, 2003) • Technology acceptance • TAM (Davis, 1989) • Learning Acceptance • Higher and Distance Education studies (Rovai, 2003) Review

9. Important elements • It is possible to identify: • Components (knowledge, commitment) • they interact with each other • Stages (preparation, action, persistence) • it is a process • Variables (eLearner, asset, organizational context) • where should an organization intervene? MeLA

10. MeLA: Map of eLearning Acceptance MeLA

11. 40 variables MeLA

12. ... and 4 critical areas MeLA

13. ... and 4 critical areas • MEANING • To make sure learners have “good reasons” to attend an activity and that they can see an added value for their job career. • INFORMATION • Learners have to expect the right thing. New skills, innovative learning strategies and a different time management are implied by eLearning. • INVOLVEMENT • The support of the top-management is extremely important to create an eLearning culture; the use formal and informal channels to integrate eLearning in corporate practices and values. • FRAMEWORK • Allocation of time windows and spaces for eLearning activities; encouraging policies and incentive systems can enhance eLearning acceptance. MeLA

14. Field

15. 6 steps toward the final index • SELECTION • important factors have been selected from the literature on the base of researcher reflections’ and on their observations during explorative case studies • REFINING • through an ex-post rationalization, variables have been compared with important factors emerged in the case studies in order to verify the completeness of the list • OPERATIONALIZATION • all the variables have been described based on the interviews conducted with learning officers in the case studies (es. com. behaviour – com. plan) • CLUSTERING • critical areas have been identified and verified discussing with eLearning managers • ASSESSMENT • a survey has been built in order to assess the presence of the variables and to verify if the list assembled by case studies was complete • RANKING • a second survey has been delivered to a different sample to assign a value to each variable Field

16. Case studies Field

17. 1° survey • Built and delivered in collaboration with the Masie Center (NY) and the Learning Consortium (www.masie.com) • Sample of 144 Fortune 500 companies (10-15 milions of employees) • Only learning managers and CLOs involved • Pilot with 5 learning managers • Response ratio 42% Field

18. 2° survey • Sample • 55 contacts of the Learning Consortium who left their data for the follow-up • 12 learning managers met during case studies • 139 learning managers • the questionnaire has also been promoted by an online magazine and some blogs • 54 valid questionnaires back Field

19. eLearning Acceptance Index Field

20. Results • Creation of a Map (MeLA) that integrate different models • Definition of the eLearning Acceptance Index as a tool for learning managers and researchers • Set of variables considered important by the 100% of responders • Ranking of parameters to set priorities in the implementation process Conclusions

21. Conclusions • Companies are more focused on the short-term (details vs. organizational culture) • Small and young companies invest more on the context to enhance the commitment of eLearners • Communication channels are in use even if not fully exploited Conclusions

22. Future developments • Refine the methodology • Extension of the sample • Geographical (Asia and Europe) • Numerical • Stronger interpretative framework • Causal relationships among variables • Define consistent implementation procedures and a set of management guidelines • Inclusion of external variables (costs, time, complexity) Conclusions

23. Dedicated support Warm invitation Passionate commitment