Learning Design - all that glitters isn't gold

Virtual reality, online simulations, artificial intelligence, learning avatars, hologram lectures …. It’s not surprising that many of us are dazed and perhaps even seduced by the increasing involvement of technology in the design and delivery of learning. On the one hand, it’s a plus mark for technology if it stimulates people to give attention to the idea of self-development throughout their working lives. In a time-poor world it’s also understandable that the learning profession will grasp the newest, coolest ‘tech’ in order to bump learning up the agenda. However, technology is also a distraction, particularly when learning professionals are drawn to it in order to be fashionable rather than effective. In my experience, new learning technologies are not yet being scrutinised sufficiently about their effectiveness although that’s not the fault of technology. If we judge the worthiness of learning by the ‘glamour’ of inputs rather than the quality of outcomes we’ve only ourselves to blame for a disappointing return on investment.

Where to start? Seeing the wood before the trees

So what do we want from learning? The big difference between education at school and learning in organizational and working life is that the emphasis shifts from acquiring knowledge to demonstrating skill. Technological innovation is rapidly commoditizing ‘knowledge acquisition’ anyway since it makes ever more information accessible to a greater number of people. Access to information and the potential to increase one’s knowledge has never been easier, but learning to act differently – habitually – is very hard. We all know this. Most of us have experienced making personal resolutions (at New Year and other times) with sincerity and firmness of intent only to feel within weeks that we are chasing something at the end of a very hazy rainbow.

Of course that doesn’t mean that acquiring knowledge isn’t important in the adult world, of course it is, and always will be (unless in the future we delegate that process entirely to androids) but the focus moves from knowing ‘stuff’ to ‘acting’ in new ways, whether that is doing new things or doing the same things in different ways. I can’t ever remember a team leader passing round a written test on the previous week’s team meeting, but the best of my team leaders always made clear what each of us was expected to do as a result of the meeting. Indeed the most exasperating teams were ones where we churned a lot of information but never seemed to change in what we did and how we did it.

It may be rather obvious but we need to think less about attention-grabbing ways of pushing ‘stuff’ into people’s heads and more about how people learn, less about inputs and more about outcomes. New glitz doesn’t trump getting these basics right.

If we talk more about what we want from learning in terms of outcomes – tangible, visible, behavioural outcomes – and less in terms of inputs, then we align our efforts and attention to what is valuable to the individual and the organization. This focus also draws into the discussion both the learners and their line managers. This is important as research shows that line manager support is critical for the application of learning[1], as is the learner’s belief that he or she can master the learning and make the necessary change.

Technology as part of the solution

New trends in learning technology and findings from neuroscience can certainly help to put these foundations of learning implementation in place.

For instance, gamification in online learning can make learning fun and at the same time give learners confidence that they can master new knowledge, at their own speed. This builds anticipation and energy for the next stage of learning which may well involve more challenging steps towards developing new skills and behaviours. The phrase ‘at their own speed’ signifies that the learning design allows individual participants control over the pace and consolidation of their learning. Remembering that in most cases we want people to change as a result of the learning, allowing room for individuals to control their learning is more than a nice by-product of learning technology. In the SCARF model [2] of human behaviour, informed by neuroscience research, the letter ‘A’ refers to ‘Autonomy’. In a learning context we are more likely to be engaged with the learning process if we perceive it to reward rather than threaten our need for autonomy.

Yet if learning and development professionals obsess about how to get people into the ‘room’ and hold their attention through the use of captivating technology then their own attention has been diverted from securing the right outcomes to sugaring the inputs. Helping people to learn is helping people to change so effective learning design starts with effective change leadership – canvassing opinion about what needs to change and building advocates who will spread the word that these changes can, and should, be made by learning together in a planned, supported way. Only then does learning design shift to considering the fruits of learning inputs - behavioural outcomes – and the system that will help achieve them.

Change happens in a system

This is an important point. If we consider a ‘talent management’ project from a learning design perspective, the title implies a narrow group of participants. In terms of who will experience the content of a learning programme this is true. In terms of who will contribute to the application of learning, the outcomes, it certainly isn’t. Here is a very short list of possible questions to illustrate how we must consider a wider group of factors, and people, when planning for learning outcomes.

• What do we want the core learners (e.g. the ‘talent’ group) to know, and do differently, as a result of this programme?

• How will we know this programme has contributed to this? By when?

• Who outside the core group can support (or block) the application of the core group’s learning?

• What does the supporting group need to know and believe to be confident and committed supporters of the core learning group?

Line managers, and others around the ‘core learners’, have to change to allow the core learners to implement their learning and build new behavioural habits. The SCARF model is therefore also useful when applied to these more peripheral, ‘supporting’ groups. For example, how do we take account of the line managers’ ‘Status’ needs and at the same time encourage them to ‘create space’ for the core learners to apply their new learning?

Deep learning in all contexts of life happens through changing behavior (alongside changing beliefs too). In the work context, change in an individual’s behavior can only be embedded if the ‘system’ allows and supports it. For the individual learner, the system exists at many levels, formal and informal, for example, through social groups, formal teams, peer groups and managerial structures. Equally, the organizational system can only change because individuals within it change.

Whether designing development for an individual team or an organization-wide change process, we need to think about the interests and change needs of both ‘core’ and ‘peripheral’ groups. Findings in neuroscience validate and deepen what we already knew about humans and change. Emerging learning technologies help us to reach different learning groups in different ways, over a sustained period, and without the need to travel away from the normal place of work.

New technology and scientific insights as part of a holistic design can help move individuals and the organization towards the desired outcomes. They are neither end-points in themselves, nor should they be the starting point for learning design.

Towards the Learning Organisation

I’ve heard the argument that it’s a mistake to talk about a learning programme or ‘event’ and that we should instead speak of a learning ‘process’ hardwired into organizational culture. In reality, both learning ‘programme’ and ‘process’ work as labels, even if the former turns out to be a subset of the latter.

Enduring organisations are learning organisations so it makes complete sense that all should aspire to have a learning culture based on an embedded process of defined outcomes, change advocacy, learning design, delivery and application. For many this will be long-term goal and they will want to experiment and get confident by starting with a one-off programme or project. The crucial first step is to define change outcomes before we select and shape learning inputs. The change journey is a natural part of individual growth and organizational sustainability. Learning technology and inputs will be part of the map we put together to navigate that journey.

We choose a map because of its helpfulness in getting us to a chosen destination but the map itself is never the journey.

[1] See An investigation of Training Activities and Transfer of Training in Organizations, Alan Saks & Monika Belcourt, Human Resource Management Winter 2006, Vol 45 No. 4 which discusses what impacts most on learning and performance outcomes in organizational settings. [2] The SCARF model, developed by David Rock, looks at human behaviour, focusing on how the brain responds to threat and reward, and with reference to analysis of brain activity. SCARF stands for these five factors - Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness – all of which influence how we engage in social, interactive and collaborative settings. The model proposes that learning increases as threats are minimised and rewards maximised.