IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/igg/jom000/v1y2011i3p46-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Effectiveness of E-learning Training and Traditional Training in Industrial Safety and Health

Author

Listed:
  • Norlinda Binti Mohd Rozar

    (University Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia)

  • Abdullah Bin Ibrahim

    (Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia)

  • Muhammad Ashlyzan Bin Razik

    (Open University, KFORCE, and Politeknik sultan Haji Ahmad Shah, Malaysia)

Abstract

In response to the demanding change in work environments, most companies not only depend on traditional training, but also on e-learning and emphasizing it in safety and health. The benefits and cost effectiveness of the benefits of e-learning training are trusted. Nevertheless, accidents still happen at the workplace. This has become an issue to be studied, especially on the effectiveness of e-learning training in comparison to traditional training. In this study, a framework to measure comparative effectiveness between these two learning environments was developed based on Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model and a case study was applied to test all the levels of the framework. These four levels include participant reaction, learning, achievements, behavior of employees, and results. The interview results indicated that there is no difference in the rating of the effectiveness of the two training methods based on Kirkpatrick’s model.

Suggested Citation

  • Norlinda Binti Mohd Rozar & Abdullah Bin Ibrahim & Muhammad Ashlyzan Bin Razik, 2011. "Comparing Effectiveness of E-learning Training and Traditional Training in Industrial Safety and Health," International Journal of Online Marketing (IJOM), IGI Global, vol. 1(3), pages 46-61, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:igg:jom000:v:1:y:2011:i:3:p:46-61
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/ijom.2011070105
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:igg:jom000:v:1:y:2011:i:3:p:46-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journal Editor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.igi-global.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.