top of page

Content rating

Participants' attitudes about the learning content. Do they like/dislike the materials, and how useful do they find them?


For example, 10 participants assessed the video in pre-work materials for 5 on a scale from 1 to 5, and 20 other participants rated it 4. This metric shows the average value of the content rating was 4.33 for 30 participants’ ratings.

If the rating is lower than 5, hypotheses are:

  • poor quality video

  • cannot adjust speed (to speed up or slow down) in the video player

  • poor video sound quality

What affects the metric:

  • visual perception of the content

  • structure

  • errors: logic, grammar

  • practical application of the material

Services and platforms where this metric is available:

Lanes

Not delivered content: learning material

The participant did not open the self-study materials


For example, the participant had to study an e-learning course to understand the basic terms within the learning module. The participant did not fulfill that task.

Hypotheses are:

  • participant did not have enough time to study the course; the program pace is too fast 

  • the e-learning course is not accessible via mobile phone and the participant has no PC

  • no notification of the e-learning course

  • the participant would prefer to study this topic in a live learning setting, etc.

What affects the metric:

  • service notifications in asynchronous learning form case

  • learning program schedule

  • asynchronous method fits the target audience 

  • student journey map design for accessing the learning materials

  • UX/UI of the service/platform where the learning track is placed

  • participant’s motivation to learn

Services and platforms where this metric is available:

  • AdobeConnect

  • Lanes

The result of studying the material

Task results in completed pre- and post-work materials: if the task is to get familiar with the material, then the status shows “successfully” or “unsuccessfully.” If it is a case task, then the grade is assessed by the curator. 


For example, the longread is developed for 3 minutes of study, and the participant spent 5 minutes on it. 30% correlation in this metric is an acceptable norm. 

Hypotheses (why there is a deviation in time) are:

  • pay attention to factual material study by the participants; maybe it is the correct time allotted for this task and there is a need to revise the developed standard

  • in the case of exceeding 30%, strengthen the engagement tools for the material, learning program, or module

What affects the metric:

  • quantity of self-study materials

  • deadline for task completion

  • learning pace

  • quality of task instructions 

  • participants’ motivation to learn

Services and platforms where this metric is available:

Lanes

Not delivered content: learning activity

Activities or content in synchronous learning were skipped by the trainer.


For example, analytics shows that some activities are skipped by the trainer.

Hypotheses are:

  • trainer did not have enough time to implement the whole learning scenario

  • these activities were optional 

  • trainer’s attitude that these activities are irrelevant to the target audience

  • the rationale can be in the program transfer quality, or incorrect information about the program's target audience

What affects the metric:

  • quality of training the trainers

  • training session design

  • timing of the session

  • timing of the activities

  • trainer’s competences

Services and platforms where this metric is available:

Lanes

Duration of one learning activity

How much time a participant spent performing the task/activity in synchronous learning


For example, if the activity is 5 minutes, and the participant was present for 3 minutes, it means that for 2 minutes, the participant was absent. This information helps determine the reason for decreased engagement.

Hypotheses (why the participant is absent in activities) are:

  • participant did not understand the task goals, got bored, and left the activity 

  • dropped internet signal

  • incorrect way of task fulfillment was selected, etc.

What affects the metric:

  • activities order in the learning scenario

  • activities correspondence and correlation with group dynamics 

  • execution: breakout rooms, individual, full group

  • relevance and practical value of exercises/cases/content/practices

  • duration of the learning session 

  • trainer’s competences 

  • content’s importance for participants

Services and platforms where this metric is available:

Lanes

Average time spent on training activity

How much time participants spent working on the exercise or task 


For example, participants spent 35 minutes on the task instead of the designated 20, or completed the task in 10 minutes, instead of 20

Hypotheses are:

  • the exercise is easy/difficult for the target audience

  • allotted time needs revision

  • additional resources are needed (e.g., more detailed instructions, etc.)

  • trainer’s understanding of the activity/exercise goal is insufficient

​

Recommendation: compare these metric indicators for several groups of participants (similar target audience), who were assigned to or completed this learning program.

What affects the metric:

  • instructions for the task quality

  • learning session design

  • activity/exercise importance for the participant 

  • participant’s motivation to learn 

  • trainer’s comprehension of the learning method objectives (trainer’s competencies)

  • the presence and quality of program transfer to trainers

Services and platforms where this metric is available:

Lanes

bottom of page