If you’re in the learning industry, you’ll likely find that what’s usually best for the learners is presumed not to be the best for business and what’s presumed best for business is usually not good for learners.
The business wants on-demand, templatized solutions delivered before now.
The learner wants self-paced, engaging experiences that are relevant.
There seems to always be a conflict between the two, with business being the continual so-called winner. You may think what’s good for business is good for the employee and therefore good for the learner; you may think executive knows best. You may also think that the company or consultants you’ve hired to deliver learner engagements wouldn’t sell you prepackaged products. If that’s what’s best for business, then that’s what you’ll get.
With concepts like reverse OJT or constructive struggle, and augmented, adaptive and learner-led learning experiences taking on traditional androgogic approaches, there is a change but it’s like a pebble against boulders in a ripple creating contest. Poor pebble, unless a whale swallows it and does some aquabatics, wholesomeness is lost.
The learner is usually not involved, in any substantial way, in the making of their own learning experience. There are processes laid out based on certain targeted standards but users (the learning industry worker) don’t really concern themselves with the why and many standards turn into simple formalities. Practice does not bring out the idea or motive behind the process. Business just doesn’t allow enough time. Learning needs analysis may include interviews with or surveys for the targeted learners but may not be given due consideration. Pilots are used to test on a group of defined learners but can be ineffective.
You may get the learning strategies right, you may get the user interface right; the learner experience is a whole lot more though.
The demand to make a great learner experience along with meeting the quickness, low cost and high ROI demanded by business objectives can have any team on tenterhooks.
So how do you do it?
[Photo by Štefan Štefančík on Unsplash]
You can set yourself up for disappointment or open yourself up to discovery or stay organised. If you open up then you must mitigate the risks that arise from so doing. Learning consultants today must be able to balance demands, to design and deliver delightful programs, of different stakeholders. A good learning consultant allows the learners to be their guide and business objectives, their boundaries.
There is much to gain from good team work and most good learning solutions are the result of teams that work well together. Communication with and between subject experts, design, development, testing and delivery teams, project managers, learners, reviewers, and reviewees has to be organised and comfortable for everyone concerned.
Understand the learners – If a learner led user experience is not feasible then at least the target audience analysis has to be a little in depth. The industry just uses a broad understanding and definition which is repeated over multiple engagements as a formality in design documents. If possible, learner representation should always be present in design processes.
Commitment to the approved design – Everyone involved should work under the common presumption that what they’re doing is the best possible solution defined within working parameters.
For learning designers and developers it shouldn’t be about achieving operational excellence or delivering at increased speed and efficiency. The focus should be more on personalizing the experience for both learners and business, and wherever possible for themselves too.