Face-to-Face and On-line Training Michelle Kaminski UALE 2016

Labor education context Foundations in popular education Values interaction and responsiveness Common for non-credit workshops Universities push for on-line credit courses Unions seek to reach more members

Why compare these programs Similar content Similar audience Key staff person / common instructional design

Description of program Face-to-Face #1Face-to-Face #2On-Line ContentInvestor education: risk and reward Budgeting, credit, and basic money management Key life events: buying a home, getting married or divorced, having a child, losing a loved one Audience:Single unionSingle union, apprentices All unions, but open to anyone FormatTrain-the-trainer model On-line Length90 minutes2 to 6 hoursSelf-directed; typically brief

Evaluations: Characteristics of respondents Face-to-Face #1Face-to-Face #2On-Line Race / ethnicity: African-American Asian-American Latino/-a Native American White 36% 5% 8% 2% 51% 18% 0% 6% 0% 76% 4% 9% 4% 83% Gender: Male Female 30% 70% 79% 21% 65% 35% Age (mean) Education HS or less some college college grad grad school 10% 42% 31% 16% 46% 33% 3% 9% 50% 0% 17% 33% How well informed B4 training?

Evaluations: Quantitative comparison Face-to-Face #1Face-to-Face #2On-Line Overall Quality Managing personal finance3.91 How to create a budget4.11 Understanding credit / debt Urgency to set goals4.33 Understand retirement income ID strategies to save4.08 How to talk to spouse about $4.00 Investing basics3.5 Buying a home4.3 Paying for college4.4

Evaluations: Union role Face-to-Face #1Face-to-Face #2On-Line Good idea to have financial training from union Trust info because it comes from union Union providing an important service

Program goals met

Evaluations: Impact Face-to-Face #1Face-to-Face #2On-Line Knowledge questions Significant increase between pre- and post-test; Knowledge gains lost at T2 follow-up Action itemsReported taking more action than control group Program goalsRated own understanding significantly higher than control group

On-line program STRENGTHS Consistency Always available Broad reach Can update for current conditions WEAKNESSES Getting visitors to the web site Access to audience Limited feedback Need for on-going support

Face-to-Face program STRENGTHS Responsive to individual participants Instant feedback Longer programs Peer interactions WEAKNESSES Inconsistency between instructors Scaling up Mismatch between curriculum and participants / participants with varying levels of expertise