CharityVillage® Research: Training via e-mail and Internet: Lessons learned since "An experiment in distance learning"

Resources & Library

Path: Main Street : Resources & Library : Research Articles : Feature Article

Training via e-mail and Internet: Lessons learned since "An experiment in distance learning"
By Marilyn Gross
In the fall of 1996, I created and taught an online course called the "Grantwriter's Workshop," which was not only my first distance learning course for nonprofits, but just about the only one in existence at the time. (A critique of the course - An Experiment in Distance Learning" - appeared in the January 6 and 13th issues of CharityVillage NewsWeek). Since that first course, I've re-worked the concepts and the material into more than a dozen different online courses, aimed at social workers, educators, fundraisers, grants researchers, proposal writers, administrators and board members, etc., both within and outside of the United States. Students have represented all 50 states, several Canadian provinces, and at least 20 other countries (including Australia, Bangladesh, Hungary, Mexico, Spain, Switzerland, UK, and Zimbabwe).
Since I launched the original "Grantwriter's Workshop," which was offered through St. Thomas Aquinas College in New York State, the field of distance learning for the nonprofit community (and of course, distance learning in general) has been growing: we see offerings from self-paced, non-credit, continuing education to certificate programs, to masters degrees. Some offerings include required on-campus components, others utilize high-tech video technology, and many include real-time features such as chat rooms or conferencing; most operate at least partially through interactive websites. While one or two programs are available to anyone for free, I've found that the rest range from a low of $35 (US) to many thousands of dollars.

Cyber-learning doesn't have to be too high tech
The format that I have chosen to use continues to be low-key, low-tech, and almost archaic in the cyber-world of the 21st century. I'm no longer embarrassed by describing my "dinosaur" approach, for one simple reason: it works - for me and, I sincerely believe, for huge numbers of individuals and organizations for whom more sophisticated (and more expensive) approaches are simply inappropriate or impossible altogether. In my first article, I recognized that the e-mail-and-Internet-based method of delivery makes learning accessible for people:

in rural areas, developing countries, and locations far from the major cities where conferences and training programs traditionally visit;
who have physical disabilities, hearing (and in some cases, visual) impairments;
with low travel budgets, over-filled work schedules, and family commitments.
In fact, three years of actual practice have confirmed and actually reinforced these realities for me! Because the e-mail and Internet format and the "asynchronous" (that is, having no "real-time" or "everybody has to be somewhere at the same time" component) nature mean that students can participate in lessons and assignments whenever they want:

time zones become irrelevant;
study can be pursued at times of day or night when Internet access and telephone service may be cheaper;
those sharing computer equipment can stagger their use of it;
people can study outside of the office, after they have returned from travel assignments, when their children are sleeping, while recovering from illness, etc.
Moreover, e-mail- and Internet-based training, when carefully planned, can be a perfect medium for the old computers, slow modems, and expensive Internet connections found in so many parts of the world -- and in any given city.

So, what works and what doesn't?
In the process of running courses continuously for the past three years, training more than 1000 people, I've captured quite a lot of interesting data from student evaluations and informal feedback, questionnaires, feasibility studies, and my own experiences and perceptions. While much of the wealth of information I've accumulated is empirical (that is, being derived from "the school of hard knocks" rather than from rigorous scientific study!), I think it provides many useful insights into "what works, what doesn't work -- and what hasn't yet been tried" for anyone contemplating either taking or creating a distance learning course for the nonprofit charitable community.
While I've presented many of the findings gleaned from the courses in recent articles and in-person trainings, new issues, as well as "lessons learned" confront me almost daily. I would like to share a few of the major ones with you here:

1. For-Credit, for Certification, or Not?
I am finding that, while there is still a tremendous number of people who simply want to increase their skills (and therefore their job security, career development, and "marketability"), increasing numbers of people would like something to "show for it." For some, simply having a "Certificate of Participation" will suffice; others are seeking continuing education credits (CEUs), while a smaller number seem to be looking for graduate credit or official certification. I believe, though, that the latter group will increase geometrically in the next several years, as more jobs and more professions will require evidence of continuing education -- and perhaps even licensure and ongoing certification.

2. Pricing?
The issue of fee-setting, and the question of "what will the market bear?" continue to be controversial and inconclusive. There is a wide distribution of people who believe: a) Courses for charitable organizations involving the Internet should be free (a small minority); b) Courses should be priced considerably less than in-person training, to reflect economies for the provider (i.e., no conference center or hotel rooms to rent, no printing or mailing costs, etc.) and economies of scale. This latter reflects a still-hypothetical concept that more people can be "packed into" a cyber-course than an in-person workshop, so this "volume" should be reflected in lower prices. (In practice, with distance learning in its infancy, online courses in the nonprofit world still tend to be under- rather than over- subscribed.); c) Someone should provide scholarships (the same wishful school of thinking that brings us "Someone should give our organization grants."). d) The most common response I've gotten to questions of pricing has thrown the issue back to me: "I don't know - what do you think they should cost? I've no idea."
My reaction (I won't call it a solution, because it's still a "work in progress") has included all of the following experiments:

The basic premise: Start with what a comparable in-person workshop or course would go for where I am located (near New York City - obviously on the "high" side of anywhere). Then subtract a considerable amount - in multiples of approximately $50 per "day" of the training.

Provide a group or multiple-enrollment discount, for the same individual, or for combinations of people from the same organization. This might be a set or graduated amount (e.g., three or more registrations - subtract $25 each; six or more registrations - subtract $40 each; etc.).

Offer a time-limited discount or partial "scholarship" during a slow time, or a time when you might attract large numbers of people from a particular "niche" group - such as teachers in summer.

Send "coupons" to targeted groups of people, such as previous students or other segments of your mailing list.

Provide partial "scholarships" to representatives of organizations with budgets below a certain size. (I do this on the "honor system," rather than requiring documentation, and don't think anyone has ever taken unfair advantage of the offer.) A trickier, but similar system might be used for courses with an international reach; for example, many Canadians have pointed out that the current exchange rate puts U.S.-appropriate fees totally out of reach for them. For similar and different reasons, this has certainly been true for participants in many other countries, as well.

On a case-by-case basis, find a way to make some exceptions. For example, I seriously wanted to include a man from Zimbabwe who wished to participate, but couldn't afford to pay. Realizing how painfully little I knew about nuts-and-bolts issues of Internet use and grantsmanship training needs in countries such as his, I invited him to be my "unpaid consultant in Zimbabwe" in exchange for a free registration. As a result, I've learned a great deal from our exchange of e-mails, and he was able to take the course! We still share information from time to time.

3. Time Commitment?
A frequent question has always been "How much time does a person need to allot for each course?" Corollary questions which increasingly follow are: "Since continuing education or graduate credits are based upon "contact time," how do we determine "contact time" in a virtual classroom? And how do we distinguish "in-class instruction" time from "outside assignment" time?
Unfortunately, there are no simple answers; if anything, the issues have become more complex as I have expanded and enhanced my online programs. While reports from students (mine and other people's) indicate that, if anything, adult learners put more time into online, as opposed to in-person training, I cannot document or quantify this fact. I will, however, shortly be running a "test case" for a new course which will eventually provide CEUs approved by NSFRE (that National Society for Fund Raising Executives), in which I will ask participants to keep formal logs of their time. Till then, I can only go by students' electronic cries of "I feel swamped by all the material you're sending!" "I'm so far behind!" "I've done the reading, but not the written assignments," and "Can I continue to send you questions after the course is over?" ("Yes.") And their comments that they spend from three to eight hours per week "on" any given course.

There have been changes since 1996
What are some other significant discoveries I've been finding, since the original course and "News Week" article?

The "techno-gap" has narrowed somewhat: But while there are fewer course participants who are just beginning their Internet experience, I do find at in-person conferences and workshops plenty of people who still feel uncomfortable with technology (though they are loathe to admit it openly), and would therefore be resistant to taking an online course anytime soon.

A tension exists on the "real time" vs. "flexibility" continuum: While participants love being able to access coursework at any time and to have classmates from around the world (who may be separated by 18 or more hours in real time!), they do miss "interaction" and the chance for live communications. How to resolve - or at least balance - the need for self-paced learning with the interest in real-time, inter-personal (and perhaps inter-time zone) communication?

As distance learning crosses cultural, linguistic, and national boundaries - how do we incorporate, reflect, respect - but not become so absorbed in - these differences that the fundamental subject matter becomes distorted or overwhelmed? How do we accommodate differences in students' abilities in the course's chosen language of instruction (in my case, U.S. English with an occasional, unconscious bit of New York bias): we neither want to "talk down to" one student while "going over the head of" another. In a virtual classroom where we cannot read faces, or enjoy the luxury of immediate comments and criticisms by students, a sensitive teacher is confronted by a complexity of dilemmas.
The findings and lessons learned which are described reflect just the tip of the iceberg: every day, I uncover large and small examples of unforeseen "glitches," as well as tremendous new benefits of a low-tech, high-accessibility approach to distance learning for charitable organizations. I would be happy to share additional insights with anyone who would like to contact me.
Marilyn L. Gross is a writer, editor, consultant, and trainer - as well as a designer and teacher of Internet-based courses for educators, fundraisers, and nonprofit managers. A former foundation program officer, she has in recent years worked through her company, Educational Funding Strategies (http://www.icu.com/efs/home.htm), and in partnership with other organizations including Philanthropy News Network (http://pj.org/pnnu/overview.cfm) and Grant Guides Plus (http://grantseeker.com)