Why Organisations Need to Rethink How They Measure Online Training

Over the last few months at Ausmed, we've had some organisations ask about timestamping learning. They want to use timestamps to “ensure” they’re only paying their learners for what they think is the exact time spent on a module. I’ll say it outright—this approach is not only silly but also woefully uninformed. The belief that timestamping accurately reflects learning engagement is deeply flawed and, in some cases, counterproductive.

The fundamental problem with timestamping is that it gives organisations a false sense of control. They believe they’re measuring engagement, but in reality, they’re measuring how long a screen was open, not how much learning actually took place. Someone could start a module, leave it running, and go for a coffee. The system would still happily log that time as “learning.”

Now, some might argue, “But it’s the best we have!” Is it, though? Is it really? Timestamp data doesn't capture focus or attention, and it certainly doesn’t tell you whether someone is understanding or retaining the material. Let alone, the holy grail, if they have actually successfully translated the new knowledge into practice. It’s just a clock ticking away. If you're relying on that to make payment decisions, you're using a metric that’s blind to the actual learning journey.

Still not convinced? Let’s break it down.

1. Device Switching Makes Tracking Impossible

In today’s world, people switch devices constantly. A learner might start a module on their laptop in the morning, jump to their phone during a break, and finish it later on a tablet. This kind of device hopping wreaks havoc on timestamp accuracy. Learning Management Systems (LMS) are often unable to synchronise sessions perfectly across devices. Gaps appear and progress gets missed, and time tracking becomes unreliable.

So, when your organisation is poring over timestamps to make payroll decisions, remember that it’s often incomplete data. You’re not seeing the full picture. Learners are engaging with content in more flexible, fragmented ways than ever before, and timestamp data simply doesn’t capture that complexity.

Can I just point out the irony here? This is exactly what we wanted from modern learning platforms - flexibility. We’ve built these systems to cater to diverse learning styles, allowing people to engage with content whenever and wherever it suits them. So, why are we suddenly expecting rigid timestamp tracking to reflect that? We asked for dynamic, portable learning, and now we need to accept that the way we measure it has to be just as adaptable.

2. Session Inactivity Skews the Data

Let’s say someone opens a module and then steps away for 10 minutes. In many systems, unless there's some mechanism to track inactivity, that time gets logged as active learning. Even systems that pause the timer when no movement is detected don’t know what’s really happening - maybe the learner is thinking deeply about the content, or maybe they're answering emails. Who knows? Timestamp data is a blunt tool, and it doesn’t account for the nuances of human behaviour. Yet some organisations treat it as gospel.

3. Offline Learning Isn’t Captured

Some learners download modules or use offline apps, only syncing their progress later when they reconnect to the LMS. This creates another massive gap in timestamp tracking. If you’re relying on timestamps, you’re missing out on a whole segment of learning activity that happens offline. It’s simply not being tracked, and yet that’s still valuable learning time.

4. Fragmented Attention Isn’t Measured

Another trap organisations fall into is thinking that timestamp data reflects continuous attention. In reality, people multitask. They might be reading through a module, responding to a Team's message, and then coming back to it. Timestamp data doesn’t know when learners are splitting their attention, nor does it know when they're actually processing information versus passively skimming. You’re measuring time but not effort or focus.

5. Short Timestamps Don’t Mean Short Learning

One of the most ridiculous assumptions made by organisations is that short timestamps mean a learner has sped through a module without engaging. But here’s a scenario: a learner starts a module in one browser, gets halfway through, and then closes it. Later, they reopen it on another device, finish it, and the system logs it as completed in 4 minutes. Does that mean they only spent 4 minutes on the whole module? Of course not! They could’ve spent a significant amount of time on the first device before switching. However, timestamp data only captures the final session, leading organisations to wrongfully assume a lack of engagement.

Time to Stop Relying on Timestamps

Here’s the thing - relying on timestamp data to decide how much you should pay learners for engaging with training is a waste of time and resources. Not only is the data flawed, but it’s also unreflective of how learning actually works. People learn at different paces, on different devices, and in fragmented sessions. A timestamp doesn’t capture that.

Rather than trying to enforce this outdated method, organisations should focus on getting clear about how they will pay for learning. For the thorough types, this should be through their Enterprise Bargaining Agreements (EBAs), employment contracts or policies. Clarify what you're paying for and when. Are you paying for outcomes, like task completion and passing assessments, or are you stuck in the past, paying for time logged? You need to decide whether you're more interested in measuring the effectiveness of the learning or simply ticking a compliance box.

The Future of Learning: Outcomes, Not Time

Learning is about outcomes, not hours spent staring at a screen. Set clear expectations for what constitutes payable learning time, and stop trying to measure engagement in minutes and seconds. The real value comes from understanding and applying knowledge, not just clocking time. Timestamping, by comparison, is nothing more than a relic of a control-based mentality that has no place in modern learning.

If your EBA or internal policies are still tied to tracking time, it’s time for a rethink. Focus on the result, and you’ll find a much clearer path to real learning, real engagement, and fair compensation.

Author