When I took the current Instructor Requalification course last year - which is only offered online - I went through the double test routine. It's kind of annoying. Because each question is timed to demonstrate fluency there's some pressure to not only come up with the correct answer, but to do it within the prescribed time limitation. I can see how people who have test anxiety and who don't normally do real well with tests would have trouble with it.
What I don't like about online formats for CE courses is the fixed presentation. Obviously there are benefits to the uniformity of the presentation, but I think the lack of flexibility on the delivery makes it inferior in some respects when compared to a conscientious live instruction format.
When I'm engaged in a live course setting I have the flexibility to tailor my delivery to my group. I can identify problem areas in the course and take as many swings as necessary to make my point. I can switch up the examples I'm using or find different approaches altogether so that we're focusing on the principles more than the examples themselves. I can readily solicit opposing viewpoints from course participants and open those areas up for discussion.
The online courses I've seen not only present less material by volume than the live courses, but they are also heavily dependent on the course developer's ability to write a course using a very limited number of examples and modes of explanation, in order to try to register with as many people as possible. In my opinion that's a severe limitation.
The other problem I have with the online courses I've seen is that many of them tend to be fixated on teaching to the quizzes, frequently incorporating the verbiage used in the test questions so they can avoid being accused of not presenting that material in the manner used in the quiz. Now I've written quizzes before and I know that in order to write a multiple choice question and include a correct answer among the alternatives I have to be real careful with my verbiage so that I don't inadvertently create a trick question that has more than one answer that can be argued to be correct. I also have to include that verbiage in the text. The problem is that the verbiage that makes for a "defendable" test question for a course developer isn't always a good way to explain the material to a student.
Moreover, I don't believe it's possible to mount a single written explanation that will register with almost everyone for some of these complex elements. Some of them are sufficiently nuanced that it takes several explanations coming from different angles, and it's hard to identify exactly which combination will register with any one group prior to interacting with them.
