Online VS In-Person Learning (AKA the “But I’m not a damn doctor!” situation)

Here's something I've been (somewhat unconsciously) mulling over for the past few years, but only really started thinking about consciously when I wanted to put my thoughts into words for this:

The challenges of online VS offline learning

Adults learning a foreign language for their job can be tricky 'cause...several factors are involved, and some of those factors aren NOT set-in-stone 'positives' or 'negatives'. A lot of it is context. Which means a lot of it is kinda like playing Jenga.

Here's what I mean (and what that means for YOU - keep reading):

1. Before 2020 and its lockdowns hit, I worked almost exclusively face-to-face. You might've read this in my 'origin story' article as well. Clients, whether they were individuals or companies, were very resistant to the idea of online learning - and it's something I heard from colleagues as well. The mentality largely was 'keep it local, find a tutor in our area'. Which was a little frustrating because, by and large, either of us moving meant our partnership was done. I’d catch myself thinking “but I’m not a damn doctor - it’s not like there’s something I can do for you in person, that I can’t over Skype!!!”

2. My (limited, at the time) experience teaching people over Skype, though, had been overwhelmingly positive. Clients got results; everybody was happy. I struggled to understand why there was such a dichotomy: most people really REALLY don't seem to want to do online,…and yet the few that do, do well. Was it just a case of different personalities - some people being more 'techy' and/or some people simply prioritizing convenience over being in the room? And, if the latter: did they see online lessons as a 'compromise' along the lines of "sure it's not quite as good as The Real Thing (read: face-to-face) but since I'm too tired/busy/introverted to do that, this will do"?

3. OR, hear me out: could it actively be a PLUS? Did certain people prefer to do online, and potentially only looked at online options, regardless of whether they had face-to-face options in their area? After more digging, here's a pattern I came across: people were more open to online learning if they

a. had done it before (duh - if you've ever had to train anyone in anything, you know it's easier to get people to repeat a pattern than it is to break it)

b. had already had face-to-face lessons with their teacher, and were now simply moving online (so there was an established relationship of trust and emotional connection)

c. travelled a lot for their job and would simply not have the ability to have regular lessons in one specific place

d. had a team of people working remotely from more than one location

Especially the last one concerns you if you're some type of L&D person. If your team is used to teleconferencing, working remotely, and getting projects done across different timezones, then online learning could seamlessly be integrated into their existing remote/online workflow. If they're not, however...you might be facing a bumpy ride.

Preferred Learning Styles

From my 15+ years of teaching, I've learned people tend to have preferred learning styles: some are more visual, some more audiovisual. Some do need to be in the room and be immersed in the experience the way a Zoom/Teams call just can't replicate. Some people are naturally more curious and eager to break existing patterns, and some people are pretty set in their ways and will only 'eat up' if you serve it to them in the 'shape' and plate they're used to (kinda how my dad will only ever eat spaghetti and penne, and NO other type of pasta...no matter how many times we tell him it's the same thing, just in a different shape 🤣).

There isn't something fundamentally 'wrong' with that, either. And those people don't necessarily need to be coaxed (or, even worse: shamed or guilt-tripped) into adopting a learning method that doesn't work for them. It's all about keeping in mind how they work, so you make the best use of their time.

What this means for you, dear L&D reader: you might need to experiment around a little before you book a language course for your team. See which people have already displayed this curiosity and flexibility, and which ones tend to prefer a specific medium. You might introduce a 'blended' approach to see how people deal with 'one foot in' - a short series of sessions (2-4) where half are face-to-face, and half are online. When you're in charge of other people's learning, as we are, you kinda have to play mad scientist sometimes.

One last thing about online VS in-person: I think people's timeline also matters. If you're dealing with senior executives in their 40s or 50s, you might find a lot more resistance to this idea of 'online learning'. If you're dealing with graduates who spent formative years (read: uni years or even the end of their highschool years) in lockdown and online, this might be a very smooth and very granted transition. The more natural it feels to someone to learn online, the more receptive they'll usually be to the material itself.

It’s less about online VS offline, and more about effective VS ineffective

So, you might ask: if online or in-person are not universally 'good' or 'bad'...are there factors that ARE?

Here's what I think - based on both my own experience as well as talking to colleagues and sniffing around on the internet (I like to read anything from Reddit posts to academic publications - variety is fun):

1. a universal factor would be the teacher's people skills. If you've ever had to train people, you already know this: teaching is a VERY different thing to 'subject matter knowledge'. We've all had terrible teachers who had a degree in what they taught, so on paper they were experts - possibly also vice versa. The ability to gauge where the student needs to be made comfortable, where to be made juuust uncomfortable enough (to grow from the challenge but not to get discouraged or defensive), to quickly understand how someone learns best, to instruct without patronizing, to establish rapport (especially with people from different backgrounds)...is not a given. It takes a combination of experience and certain personality traits like empathy and emotional intelligence.

The consistent pattern I've seen, is: students learn better when they feel safe, at ease, and like they're talking to a friend rather than 'Having A Lesson'. This might be at least as important as the teacher's subject matter knowledge, if not more so. Funnily enough, there's data that shows a similar pattern for psychotherapy [1,2]: the single strongest predictor of patients' improvement isn't the psychologist/-iatrist's professional accolades, but relationship between therapist and patient. I don't have hard data on the teacher-student relationship, but my experience in 15+ years of teaching-in-some-capacity says the same.

(Note: of course there IS a minimum threshold of competence for the teacher or therapist - I’m not suggesting complete randos with a heart of gold can help you better than experienced professionals. I’m talking about a point of diminishing returns beyond that threshold, if the so-called ‘soft skills’ of the teacher or therapist aren’t sharp enough.)

2. the other universal factor I've found, is the existence of a specific goal *that has measurable milestones*. Simply an "improve my German/English" wasn't enough; even "accomplish X goal (eg. a B2 level)" was often not enough. It usually needed to be as specific as

"improve my German/English so I can get promoted/moved to HQ + by X date + the progress will be tracked via regular assessments and feedback so I can compare where I was Y time ago to where I am now"

Phew! But that’s as forensic as you’re probably gonna need to get with it. When people could see that their target language is now at X level, whereas three months ago it was at X-1 level, they got really motivated. And ultimately, neither you (as in: the person responsible for arranging/booking/funding their L&D), nor I can drag them along indefinitely if the motivation isn't there.

Conclusions

To sum this up, I believe a solid, effective training course for employees (language or otherwise, most likely), comes down to

1. hiring the right teacher, who can establish a strong relationship with the students quickly

2. using the medium the students are most comfortable with

3. having a specific and measurable objective for the students, which is both work-related AND assessed regularly through the use of milestones

That's all for now - I might have more musings on this down the line, but for now: let me know what you think in the comments, or get in touch directly if you have questions.

Nick

Footnotes

[1] Frank, J. D. (1961). Persuasion and healing: A comparative study of psychotherapy. Johns Hopkins Univer. Press.

[2] Horvath, A. O., & Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation between Working Alliance and Outcome in Psychotherapy: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology,38, 139-149.