Online Training Modality Matters: Comparing Satisfaction and Outcomes of Child Welfare Trainings Delivered Via Zoom Meeting and Zoom Webinar Formats

Background: In Michigan, there are approximately 10,057 children in foster care. Outcomes of these children and their families are contingent upon several factors, one being the skills of child welfare workers. States are required to train caseworkers upon hiring and throughout their tenure. The Michigan Child Welfare In-Service Training program (MCWIST), a university-agency training partnership, provides 70 grant-funded training events to approximately 2,000 case managers and supervisors annually. Most training events are delivered live as Zoom Meetings or Zoom Webinars. Minimal research has compared the satisfaction and utility of trainings conducted across these modalities. This study explored the following research questions:1Do trainees' reports of the utility of in-service trainings vary by modality (Zoom Meetings vs. Zoom Webinars)? 2) Do trainees' reports of increased knowledge on a topic vary by modality? 3) Does the relevance of in-service training topics vary by modality?

Methods: Post-tests (N = 3,195) were collected electronically for each training event between 2020 and 2024 and included demographic information, satisfaction ratings and professional knowledge/skills related to the training topic. Live Zoom Meetings use a classroom style with highly interactive engagement such as discussions and breakout groups. Zoom webinars use a presentation style with limited interactive engagement such as chat and Q&A features. We conducted One-way ANOVAs to identify whether there were significant differences in utility, understanding, and relevance based on training modality.

Results: RQ1) Results showed that mean utility ratings were statistically different across modality: F(1, 3188) = 12.78, p < .001. A Post Hoc test found the mean score for Zoom Meeting group was significantly higher (M = 4.36, SD = 0.66) than for Zoom Webinar group (M = 4.27, SD = 0.64) (CD = -0.09, p < .001). RQ2) There were statistically significant differences in the average scores of understanding between modalities: F(1, 3194) = 22.7, p < .001. Further analysis indicated the Zoom Meeting group had a significantly higher mean score (M = 4.33, SD = 0.65) than the Zoom Webinar group (M = 4.21, SD = 0.63) (CD = -0.12, p < .001). RQ3) Results for relevancy scores were statistically significant, indicating a difference in average scores of relevancy among the modalities: F(1, 3191) = 9.46, p = .002. Post hoc analysis indicated that Zoom Meeting participants had a significantly higher mean scores (M = 4.43, SD = 0.65) than Zoom Webinar participants (M = 4.35, SD = 0.64) (CD = -0.07, p = .002).

Conclusions and Implications: The results of this study suggest that child welfare training participants may benefit more from trainings delivered via Zoom Meetings than Zoom Webinars. This suggests that participants benefit from live online trainings that include highly interactive engagement strategies. Given that outcomes for children and families in foster care are closely tied to the skills and readiness of child welfare workers, child welfare agencies should consider how to increase opportunities for interactive online meetings over webinars with less opportunities for engagement. Additional research is warranted to compare these outcomes by type of training topic.