Why was this study done?
As technology use has increased over the last few decades, and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, methods of delivering occupational health and safety (OHS) training have increasingly shifted from in person to online. This study sets out to understand how these methods compare in training effectiveness.
How was the study done?
About 900 study participants were recruited between January and September 2022 from a group of learners who chose one of three formats for their standardized Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) Certification Part 1 training. The three formats were: in person with an instructor, online with an instructor or online self-directed e-learning.
The researchers surveyed learners before and after the training to measure their knowledge about the topics covered in the course. Participants were also asked about other aspects of the training, including: how engaging it was, how useful the information was, whether the information was applicable to their workplace, how confident they felt about using what they learned and how likely they were to use the new learning.
Information on each participant was also collected including demographic information, job type and workplace characteristics. Participants were also asked about their pre-training attitudes towards each of the three training formats, JHSC role and tenure and reason for taking the training.
What did the researchers find?
After the different characteristics across learners were accounted for, in-person learners scored 2.5 per cent higher on post-training knowledge questions than online, instructor-led learners. Training providers who collaborated with the research team regarded this difference as not meaningful in practice; a 10 per cent difference would be needed to be seen as meaningful. No significant difference was found between online self-directed and online instructor-led learners.
All three training formats received generally positive ratings from the learners. Where some differences were found, in general, in-person learners rated their training higher than online instructor-led learners, who rated their training higher than self-directed e-learners. Engagement ratings showed the greatest differences, with in-person learning having the highest scores, followed by online instructor-led and self-directed e-learning. Additionally, learners in the in-person training, compared to online learners, felt more confident and perceived their new knowledge as more useful, particularly compared to those in self-directed e-learning.
What are the implications of the study?
The findings suggest that, for this particular type of training, learners achieved similar levels of knowledge in their training, whether the format they used was in person, online instructor-led or online self-directed e-learning. This finding is likely generalizable to other similar types of short-term OHS training directed toward gaining new knowledge. (The study cannot be generalized to training focused on gaining demonstrable skills).
In-person training is perceived the most positively by learners, mainly in terms of engagement, but also in terms of the confidence in their ability to use the new information—a measure that is important for the eventual transfer of OHS knowledge to the workplace. Future studies are needed to determine whether these differences would actually affect OHS practice in the workplace.
What are some strengths and weaknesses of the study?
A strength of this study was its use of standardized training across all three formats, which ensured they could be compared fairly. The online and in-person instructor-led courses were also taught by different instructors, which reduced the possibility that study results about these formats could be attributed to the effect of an individual instructor. The study also had a large sample size and made statistical adjustments to account for the differences in the learners across the three training formats.
A limitation of the study was the fact that participants were not randomly assigned their training format. Random assignment would have further reduced the chance that participants’ preference for, or comfort with, one format over another masked any differences across the formats in training effectiveness. Another limitation was the timing of the post-training survey. Because it came shortly after the training, differences in long-term knowledge retention could not be estimated.