Compare, Contrast & Conclusions
Cannon addresses this issue directly by specifically mentioning the different activities throughout the learning packages that will engage various types of learners while the design of Colgate’s training packages are focused on interaction and combining reading activities with visual activities, it does not seem to value the design of training for the differences in learning styles.
However, it can be shown in both case studies that blended learning does not necessary need to be approached in terms of the physicality of the learning. Blending classroom training and online training doesn’t necessarily create the best results. Defining the best aspects of both methods such as the interactivity of classroom learning and the flexibility of online learning and blending those will create better results. The blend of these aspects can be embedded in the design of online training and create a more successful training package in itself.
It can be argued that traditional classroom learning is geared towards Aural, Visual and Kinaesthetic learners whereas online tutorials that require reading and comprehension could favour the read/write learning styles. In order to provide a training package suitable for all learning blending learning activities may be necessary. It is possible to incorporate all these aspects into the design of an e-learning program this can be shown by the success of Walter the interactive cartoon that is present in Canon’s online training packages.