Making informed decisions is important to us, and we want our stakeholders to feel just as comfortable with the available information as we are. So, one of our objectives with JVSP is to collect plenty of data and openly share what we learn with you.
Now it’s finally time to take a moment to get you up to date with this exciting information!
Below, you’ll find overall connection data, which is the primary focus of this article.
Types of Projects, Companies, & Institutions
First, we want to highlight that the first customer to use our system launched the first course on November 1, 2016. And, this article will show you the stats from that date to October 4, 2017.
So, we’re working with a little more than 11 months’ worth of information.
Types of courses hosted on JVSP:
- Safety driving
- Sales training
- Soft Skills
- Energy and infrastructures
- Young people.
Total number of sessions in the period: 278,422
Number of users who have connected: 48,643
Pages viewed: 4,353,543 pages
Pages per session: 15.64 pages
Average time per corporate learning session: 13.10 minutes
Browsers Used in Corporate Environments
41.89% Google Chrome
25.74% Internet Explorer (53% IE 11 and 47% IE 10)
Browsers Used in Non-Corporate Environments
Remarkably, outside of the business world—at least among users between 18 and 20 years of age—the use of Google Chrome spikes.
79% Google Chrome
3% Internet Explorer and Microsoft Edge combined
You’ve likely been hearing about mobile learning for years, but you may not have known how to make it work for you. We believe that this data can help when implementing mobile learning and concrete training programs in multiple sectors.
Note, the data presented below were obtained mainly from projects implemented in a country with a 67% smartphone penetration rate. The United States has a 69% penetration rate, while Canada has 70% and the UK 69%—the same as Germany and Holland.
Our main conclusion is that learning programs can now be implemented through mobile for training in the sales, banking, and telecommunications sectors, using Microlearning approach (i.e. delivering material in small, very specific potions, controlled by the learner).
However, we don’t see successful implementation in programs currently aimed at school teachers. At least, the data do not indicate this possibility.
The overall connection results from the 278,000.61 sessions are as follows:
- Desktop connection: 68%
- Mobile connection: 32%
However, different groups use mobile at different rates, so it is very useful to analyse the results according to age ranges and project or industry type:
For example, in a sales academy in a telecommunications company, with the connection ratios of over 22,060 sessions and 1,869 users, the average times and pages viewed per session are quite similar to the average. But, unlike data collected from other sources, this comes mainly from mobile devices, with 81% mobile connections versus 19% from desktop.
In this case, the experience could be referred to as fully mobile training.
In another fascinating case, young participants between the ages of 18 and 20 took part in an open training itinerary. The objective of the training was to improve awareness while driving a motor vehicle. The contents included videos, infographics, readings, and podcasts. And despite the varied, complex content, in this case of 21,778 sessions and 3,353 users, 43% completed the training from their mobiles, with an average of 14 minutes.
Finally, we found a significant increase in mobile participation in the case of a banking customer in a sales school. In this case, out of 9,534 sessions and 1,928 users, we found 56% mobile connections versus 44% on desktop.
Contrary to the examples above, school teachers and principals who participated in a leadership program were less likely to do so from mobile. We found 87% desktop connections, versus 13% from mobile.
These are just a few of the specific groups we have found so far, but as we collect more data, we hope to develop a clear picture of which groups are at the forefront of mobile learning, and who is lagging behind.
How these results were obtained:
All the analysed projects have followed a pedagogical approximation of Microlearning.
All courses are divided into different modules, and different learning objects are found in each module.
Keys to Implementation
Four ways of implementing courses have been shown to retain the highest levels of engagement:
- A sequential course, where the different modules open over time. At the beginning of a module, all of its learning objects are published, and the tutor sends instructions to the students about what is expected of them.
- A sequential course, where the different modules open over time, AND the learning objects of an open module are also published sequentially, on different dates, over the course of the module. This gives the tutor the opportunity to communicate with the students more frequently, improving engagement. But, it requires more dedication on the part of the tutor to coordinate all of the alerts and follow-ups.
For example, I open module two of a course that will last two weeks. On the first Monday, I publish a presentation video; on Wednesday, a discussion case; the following Monday, a reading; and the following Thursday, a summary of what was learned with a participation activity.
- Course in ‘Campaign’ form. At the beginning of the period, all the modules are open. More than modules, these are considered work areas or activity typology. In order to keep students constantly attentive and participative, it is necessary to publish updates with corresponding push notifications. At the end of the period, the campaign is closed and the winners of the period are announced.
This type of course is highly recommended for a sales school. It allows a module or work area to have the objective of obtaining information from the commercial network with short and easy to answer questions.
Which implementation must ALWAYS be avoided? What we call: dropping the objects and modules. A course is published with all its contents open. A call is sent with superficial instructions to the students, without indicating what is expected of them except completion of the course. The student is never contacted again, except to tell him/her two days before the end that he/she must finish said course.
Here, the participation rate will no doubt be low, and worse, students are likely to feel confused and frustrated (making future participation unlikely as well).
The Wrap Up
Overall, we’re incredibly proud of our accomplishments and what we’ve been able to learn over our first year, and we’re excited to see where the data takes us next. No matter what happens, you can be sure that we’ll be back to share it all with you!