Renaming elearning doesn’t fix broken content or projects that don’t met a specification. Equally if you don’t elearning that’s fine. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for someone else. Don’t like animation or video – no problem. This doesn’t mean its no working for other people.
The challenge and the problem is that Learners are still forced to finish boring courses. Many platforms don’t support modern needs. And no rebrand will solve low completion rates, poor feedback, or lost time. Any you might be reading this thinking that you don’t like completion rates or the word learners – are they really the problems? Each company or organisation has a different challenge, they approach it in different manner. The solution for one is different for others. Some of the problem might be that people try to suggestion that there idea or solution os for the whole sector and industry.
What actually matters is how it’s built. Engagement, accessibility, and design matter more than flashy labels. Good elearning starts with listening, testing, and creating with users in mind.
The Data Behind the Problem
The global elearning market is booming, with revenues projected to exceed $320 billion. Online learning can outperform traditional methods in knowledge retention. But growth doesn’t equal quality.
Despite that momentum, many learners still struggle with engagement, relevance, and usability. These issues reinforce the very elearning problems we keep seeing.
To put some numbers behind it, here’s what the data shows:
- 45% of L&D professionals identify learner engagement as the top challenge their organisation needs to address. (eLearning Industry)
- Microlearning courses average 80% completion, compared to just 20% for long-form modules. (eLearning Industry)
- 90% of information transmitted to the brain is visual, processed 60,000× faster than text. (eLearning Industry)
- Employees forget ~90% of training content within a week if elearning isn’t built for retention. (eLearning Industry)
- ~98% of companies planned to use elearning for corporate training by 2023, yet engagement remains a major issue. (Continu)
- Mobile learning boosts motivation by ~70%, showing that inflexible, desktop-only formats hinder outcomes. (Continu)
- Learner engagement gaps appear even when users are logged in. Many are mentally disengaged in poor digital training. (eLearning Industry)
Why People Still Roll Their Eyes at Elearning
When someone mentions elearning, what’s the first thing that comes to mind?
If you’re like most people, it’s probably a painful memory of a mandatory training module, something you were forced to complete at work, clicking next-next-next until it finally let you leave. You might be part of a club, perhaps you are doing a qualification in your spare time and needed to complete an online course. It might have been clunkly, difficult to access, it took too long, was difficult? You might have a whole list of issues.
Scott Hewitt often asks a simple question at this point:
Why is it that so many people’s experience of elearning is something that was poorly designed or took far too long to complete? Who actually needs an hour-long elearning course on how to lift a box?
Let’s be honest. For many, elearning still carries the reputation of being the worst kind of digital content. The dull compliance course. The poorly designed fire safety module. The “watch this or else” video that eats up your lunch break. And that’s a problem, because for a lot of people, that’s their only experience of online training.
If you think of websites, you get the opporuntity to skip, find another website. With elearning, most people have been ‘forced’ to complete the course so if the experience is bad then its stuck with them for a long time.
It’s Not Just at Work
Even outside of work, it’s not much better. Think about the volunteers at a sports club doing safeguarding or finance courses. The content might be solid, but the experience is clunky, forgettable, and frustrating. And because that’s often their only encounter with elearning, it becomes the definition of it. It’s not just about work, its every experience of elearning.
An Industry That Keeps Changing the Label
The industry hasn’t helped itself either.
Unlike apps or websites, which everyone just calls apps and websites, our field can’t seem to settle on what to call itself. Is it elearning? Online learning? Learning technology? CPD? Even using the e-learning or Elearning and the debate that you’l see surface on elearning. Honestly, does it really matter?
Scott regularly challenges this thinking by asking:
At what point did we decide that renaming elearning was the same thing as fixing it? Why do so many people believe a new label or badge solves fundamentally poor experiences?
But here’s the thing. Renaming elearning doesn’t fix the real problems with elearning.
Acronyms don’t fix engagement. New labels don’t rewrite poor user experiences. And no one has ever enjoyed a course more just because it was called something different.
As Scott shares,
the conversation is dominated by similar voices on LinkedIn, proposing the latest shiny framework or catchy without ever really testing it, where are the case studies? Where’s the work of actually speaking to people, learning from mistakes, and improving what’s already there?
People Solve Problems, Not Platforms
The truth is simple. People solve problems, not platforms.
Yet too often, the conversation is dominated by confident commentators offering complete answers to complex problems, without ever checking whether those answers match what real users need.
Scott often asks the question many avoid:
Have you actually spoken to the customer before declaring that an animation, a video, or a format is ‘useless’? What if that content is exactly what the audience needs, not what the expert prefers?
In any other business setting, this approach wouldn’t survive. You wouldn’t keep renaming a product if it didn’t work. You’d go back, understand the problem, and make it better. Some people are too quick to just re-name, re-label or write a LinkedIn post about a new idea – how
Think carefully about the idea that buying a new tool automatically doesn’t fit bad elearning. It actually might be part of the problem? Is the platform really the issue, or is it that the existing tool doesn’t support accessibility, or that teams don’t have the skills to use it properly? Have you defined what good looks like before dismissing the solution entirely? But ulimtately your people will solve problems.
The answer, more often than not, is to slow down. Understand the problem. Spec the solution. Test it. Measure it.
And most importantly:
Are you building this for yourself, or for the people who actually have to use it?
It’s Time to Stop Renaming and Start Rebuilding
So maybe what elearning needs isn’t another acronym.
It needs better outcomes. Real solutions. Projects that work for real people. And that starts with stepping off the rebranding merry-go-round and finally addressing the elearning problems we’re here to solve.
Because in the end, it’s not the language that needs changing.
It’s the experience.
Q&A: Common Questions About Elearning Problems
Q: Why is elearning not effective?
Elearning often fails because it’s built without the end user in mind. Poor design, long modules, and forced completion make it feel like a task, not a tool. When content isn’t relevant or accessible, people switch off – even if they’re still clicking “next.”
Q: What are the problems with e-learning?
The biggest problems include low engagement, poor user experience, clunky platforms, and content that’s too long or irrelevant. People are often made to complete elearning, even when it doesn’t work. It’s not the format that fails, it’s how it’s designed and delivered.
Q: Which of the following is the biggest problem with e-learning?
Engagement. If people don’t care, they won’t learn. You can fix tools and update content, but if the audience isn’t interested, the results don’t stick. Design, delivery, and empathy matter more than flashy features.
Q: What are the 10 disadvantages of e-learning?
Too long. Boring content. Poor design. Hard to access. Not mobile friendly. Lacks interaction. No feedback loop. Too theoretical. Forced participation. One-size-fits-all. But the real problem? It’s often built for the system, not the people using it.
