Employers have significantly benefited from the evolution of distance learning as it relates to corporate training. The shift to digital onboarding and online employee training has eliminated excessive travel expenses, time-consuming event planning, costly printing solutions, and employee inconvenience. One of the most important benefits of distance learning is the fact that it is scalable (Moller, Foshay, Huett, 2008). Training can be delivered quickly and efficiently without interrupting anyone’s schedule. Gone are the days when you try to find a large enough space to jam everyone into a conference room or franticly search for overpriced meeting spaces for multi-day training events. Employees no longer must deal with long commutes and horrible parking situations, not to mention being forced into close quarters with complete strangers in unfavorable conditions. Since new hire onboarding and mandatory training can now be delivered completely online and at the convenience of the user, most organizations have downsized their onboarding departments and invested in instructional designers who create interactive learning modules that can easily be updated and accessed by anyone.
While I agree with Moller, Foshay, and Huett, that the motivating factors for corporate e-learning are predominantly economic (Moller, Foshay, Huett, 2008), I appreciate the fact that online delivery of once human-led training has surprisingly put organizations on a sustainability path. There is no need to print employee handbooks, compliance paperwork, and training materials as all resources are accessible virtually, and less business travel is better for the environment and the work-life balance of employees. Distance learning not only saves time and money, but also adds value by utilizing technology resources, expediting delivery and communication, and providing upskilling and accessibility to employees.
I share Wedemeyer’s views on the outdated concepts of learning and teaching in higher education, specifically the lack of modern technology utilization (Simonson, Zvacek, Smaldino, 2019). I have attended traditional in-person higher education courses and also worked within higher education institutions, so I have seen first-hand the lack of technology-driven processes and blatant rejection of technology that directly contributes to the stagnation of modern learning progression. Many higher education institutions still depend on manual procedures for administrative processes, like faxing and physical invoicing for purchasing, or operate on software systems that lack integration, so more time and money are spent, as multiple systems are required to meet operational effectiveness. Much of this is due to a traditional mindset of “this is how we have always done it” and the extreme resistance to change by senior leadership. In the classroom, many instructors use the same lesson plans for decades and do not even change their utilized textbooks, lecture formats, or assessments. These types of rigid processes do not leave room for innovation and if an instructor exhibits such extremely closed-minded behavior with learning approaches, the connection to their students will most likely not be a positive experience.
As a future Instructional Designer, I believe in focusing on strategic planning practices to ensure a learner-centered approach to distance education initiatives. Clear communication of expectations and active learning opportunities should be implemented to ensure understanding, accountability, and effective knowledge transfer. Instructional designers who create corporate training need to consider diverse learning styles, achieve impactful employee engagement, and address compliance standards. Instructional designers need to be continuous learners and possess endless curiosity for enhancing their creativity. I remain infinitely curious of new technology and will always strive to create learning objectives that require technical knowledge utilization and include active hands-on learning activities. Real experiences provide the foundation for learning (Simonson, Zvacek, Smaldino, 2019). I believe immersive technology is the future of learning (Foye, 2024). Interactive 3D environments such as virtual classrooms or labs full of learners and instructors on VR headsets, virtual field trips to anywhere in the world, and business conferences attended by global organizations for real-time collaboration without ever leaving home (Foye, 2024). This is the future I want to be a part of as I continue my career in Instructional Design, and as a current remote worker, I can’t wait to see the day I can interact with my fellow employees in a virtual environment instead of just see their faces on my screen (Foye, 2024).
References
Simonson, M., Zvacek, S., & Smaldino, S. (2019). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (7th ed.) Information Age Publishing.
Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 1: Training and development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70-75.
Niehoff, M. (2021). How interactive 3D is transforming the way we work and learn. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-04-06-how-interactive-3d-is-transforming-the-way-we-learn-and-work
Foye, 2024. Topic: Week 6: Discussion. (2022). Instructure.com. https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/99618/discussion_topics/1052151?module_item_id=3430482