Five Ways Training is Different Online from in the Classroom

Musings on the Digital Disruption Caused by Covid

“An organisation’s ability to learn, and translate that learning into action rapidly,
is the ultimate competitive advantage.”

Jack Welch – Former CEO, GE

When Covid-19 hit us fast and hard, the world moved quickly. The impossible became possible – overnight. As trainers – we moved rapidly, not necessarily elegantly into the virtual space. However, given the lockdowns, the privilege trainers have enjoyed is the gratitude our participants have expressed from the opportunity for a social interaction – even if it was – from one screen to another. Their gratitude has served as a forgiving buffer for any tech issues, or content that was not yet adjusted to the new digital realm. We were safe.

Now, however, as the dust settles on the digital disruption that has happened in education over 18 months ago – the customers expectations have changed. True, we have all adjusted. Educators globally have developed the skills to use video-conferencing tools. Children as young as six can mute and un-mute independently. Participants have adjusted to a training event – without a coffee and a croissant.

But now – to echo Jack Welch’s words: “how can we learn, and translate that quickly into action?” How – do we as organisations and trainers – get that competitive edge? How can we be sure that our participants will find the training we deliver to be impactful, engaging and relevant?

To do so, we need to first understand the differences between the virtual and physical space. What exactly is different? Only then, can we identify how to improve it. This article, focuses only on the first aspect: what is different?

There are many new variables that affect the learning experience in the digital space: the choice of platform, the facilitation skills of the trainer, the digital expertise of the trainer, the digital proficiency of the group, adapting the content to the digital space. Of course there are often implicit expectations that are harder to gauge: the motivation of the group, the expectations of the sponsor (the organisation paying for the training).
But what is different?

Here are my thoughts – from the trainer perspective – about what is different in the digital classroom

1. More distractions.

In a corporate training room or in school classroom, you don’t have to compete with anything else for attention. The participants have put their phones and laptops away. And if technical devices are there, they are used discreetly.

Online, in sharp contrast, there is a whole world of entertainment a fingertip away. Your participants can quite easily slip away.

I must confess, oh how I have sinned in this department! When attending an online training day, I was typing furiously, with occasional nods and glances at the screen. It was a pathetic semblance of attention. Did I like what I was doing? No.
Did I feel good about it? No. But faced with a full training day, a looming deadline and parenting duties in the evening – I did not have a choice.

While I was paying for the course; someone else was paying me more for a task they needed at 8am the following day. I chose sanity and sleep, over courtesy to the trainer.

And as a facilitator, we need to accept and dare I say – respect – that more distractions are there. For example, if a participant gets an email from their CEO with a “I’m not happy with something” vibe; the participant may remain in the classroom, but their focus will have left the building.

2. The digital space lacks the physical markers of a meeting room where seniority is clearly shown by physical position. (Economist, April 2021).

Similar to the Chair of a Board meeting, who sits in the “alpha” position at the top of a long table, the trainer typically stands at the top of the room, waiting to greet the participants as they walk through the the door. The participants venture in (they might even knock) and ask permission where to sit down. This gives the trainer some territorial advantage, similar to the alpha position of the Chair of the board.

And online? We all rock up to the same digital space. Even if the trainer is the first to show up (we should hope so), at best, the trainer has the benefit of some form of corporate branding to show that they are the person “in charge”.

3.The group’s dynamic is less predictable.

Most groups, especially ones that are held over several days or weeks, will self-regulate at a certain point, following the forming-storming -norming-performing-adjourning sequence (Tuckman, Wikipedia. The facilitator – or at least a skilled facilitator – will step further and further back, allowing the participants perform, with the trainer available for occasional direction, but allowing the group self-manage. But online, this sequence is less clear – or at least it is is less clear to me. The trainer still seems to need to be there, to direct the traffic. Or possibly there is something still for me to learn here.

4.The trainer needs to attend more carefully to the mood of the group, allowing more breaks to compensate for “zoom fatigue”, a phenomenon suggested by Stanford as the cognitive load that video-conferencing can have.

5. It is harder to interrupt people online.

In a real-life class, the facilitator had an arsenal of body language gestures and subtle cues to facilitate a balanced discussion. For example, you can:
-direct your gaze at a participant who has yet to speak, and they often will.
-shift your body stance (or your gaze) away from a participant who has gone off-track, and they will generally stop talking.

Even subtle micro-movements, such as a disapproving shimmer of an eyebrow, or tilting one’s head, or less subtle – directing your gaze towards the door, and the over-talker will realise that it is time to shuddup. But online, how can you do this? You are after all, already staring directly at everyone.

While chatty extroverts can also dominate real life meetings, or lectures, however, in real-life, a participant in a training course will also be able to pick up the body language cues of the others participants, e.g., a shifting in their seat to signal discomfort (or boredom). Or, they may even be interrupted by another participant. All of this vital body language data is missing. We just see the head and shoulders. Digital learning is similar to driving, where our immediate view is limited to the road ahead.

While attending a live event last year, I got jolly irritated when a facilitator failed to re-direct a panellist who had gone completely off-topic. The panellist was revelling in the attention, whereas the audience was languishing under the weight of the speaker’s narcissism-light. The facilitator appeared to be “too polite” to interrupt the speaker, but they lost the confidence of the paying audience. Not good.

I stopped listening, and showed my irritation by playing with my phone, messaging a friend who was also attending. This friend – a more patient soul than me – pointed out that the facilitator comes from a culture, where it is considered rude to interrupt; and the panelist came from a culture where interrupting is standard.

What does this all mean for trainers? I don’t know for sure. My hunch is that  online  facilitation  requires much more from the trainer than decent technology trouble-shooting skills. I believe it requires a higher level of moderation expertise. This includes being able to:

• attend closely to the mood and energy level of the group and allow for more breaks to allow for zoom-fatigue.
• pivot the conversation away from the dominant- folk to allow for a more balanced engagement from all participants.
• find appropriate ways to allow for regular feedback and interaction, using digital tools that don’t overwhelm less tech-friendly participants

To conclude, I must say, I enjoy the digital space. I even enjoy the challenge of lacking the “alpha” advantage I took for granted in the physical space (not to mention that it has forced me to up my game in terms of digital expertise.) Another difference – I am quicker to delegate authority – allowing participants who are more vocal and who have specific expertise play a stronger lead.

Digital disruption has happened in education. It came, it saw and it conquered. Many believe that education, or work will ever be the same again. We have tasted the nectar of working in our comfy pyjamas. We have seen how it makes it easier to combine other commitments, as trainers we have had to up our game in terms of facilitation and participant engagement.

To return to Jack Welch’s words said – what can we learn from the digital experience and how can we learn, and translate that quickly into action?

This article has asked the question, and not necessarily answered it. These are my thoughts on the 5 differences between facilitating online versus in person. It is purely anecdotal – and based on discussions with colleagues, this is not hard science. Do you agree? Disagree?

Call to action: If you lead meetings, train, teach or facilitate online, please comment below, or make suggestions as to how you have adapted to make the digital realm more engaging.   Let’s find that competitive advantage – together. Let’s make it better.