Accelerate May 2015 - Page 59

Learning & Development ii. Instructional Design L&P’s leaders debated ILT versus eLearning. Strong advocates for eLearning presented it as best for our scattered population and as “the highpowered emerging methodology”, stating ILT was soon to be outdated. Those favoring ILT pointed to the dismal results internationally showing that “in the real world” 70-80 percent of eLearning courses were never finished. We determined that some courses and situations lent themselves to largely eLearning techniques. We also had opportunities, due to participants being entirely within the corporate offices or each customer care centre, that ILT was most appropriate. Yet, blended learning approaches won out many times, with eLearning preparatory information and post-ILT follow-up being delivered via electronic formats. In between, especially when the learning objectives were best achieved from face-to-face coaching, role playing, team planning, giving and receiving feedback, etc., ILT was utilised. All of L&P’s leadership wholeheartedly came to believe incorporating learning styles and full cycle learning was the foundational design and implementation approach we would utilise throughout AmeriCredit. As we were in the forefront of combining these, and had our own challenges to address within the company, this meant we would be developing most courses and complementary learning aids largely in-house. Thus, we purchased only a few off-the-shelf vendor training modules, along with obtaining 50-75 AmeriCredit was nam