š±š¤Æ 4 moments of learning-design danger šļøā¾
Stealing some thoughts from Steal These Thoughts!
For this weekās edition of the Dispatch, Iām going to steal some thoughts from a recent newsletter by our friend Ross Stevenson.
As you might have gathered, we like Rosses here at Mind Tools. And while I normally wouldnāt advocate pinching another writerās ideas, the name of Rossās newsletter is literally āSteal These Thoughts!ā.
So Iām going to accept Rossās kind invitation and do exactly that⦠while adding a few thoughts of my own.
Last week, Ross S wrote a piece titled āš” Fix These 4 Learning Design Mistakesā, which I liked for a number of reasons:
It had an emoji in the title, and emojis are cool. (I may have gone overboard this week.)
It highlights four of the most common issues we encounter when discussing new projects with clients.
Itās actually a little broader in scope than its title suggests, touching not only on learning-design pitfalls, but challenges in the way L&D manages and markets its products.
Rather than simply regurgitating the four mistakes Ross S identifies in his article, I want to explore them through the key moments in a typical project lifecycle. Iāll then explain how we help our clients navigate these moments, where their interventions are at the greatest risk of going off the rails.
š± āWe need some training!ā
As Ross S points out in his newsletter, many L&D projects are driven by direct requests from the business. Usually, these requests are based on an assumption that training is the answer, even when itās not entirely clear what the question is.
This is the first opportunity for things to go awry.
If L&D simply fulfills orders without taking the time to clarify needs or engage with end users, theyāre essentially throwing training at the wall and hoping something will stick. Ross refers to this as the āspray and prayā tactic.
By the time a project reaches our team at Mind Tools, someone has usually already decided that training is the solution. Instead of accepting this and ploughing ahead in blind faith, we like to position ourselves as āusefully ignorantā. This typically involves asking lots of questions (including āWhat would be the consequence of doing nothing?ā and āHow might we make things worse?ā). The answers to these questions might lead us to conclude that training is the solution, but we never assume thatās the case at the outset.
𤯠āPeople need to know this!ā
Of course, what weāre trying to get at through these questions is a clear understanding of the business outcome the client is hoping to achieve. One of the four mistakes Ross highlights in his newsletter is āNot solving a real problemā and, to me, this is the big one.
My favorite example of a āfakeā problem is usually formulated as something like āpeople just need to know thisā. And maybe they genuinely do, but āpeople need to know thisā isnāt a problem statement.
To get to the heart of the real problem, we want to clarify: i) why people need to know this; ii) what behavior or action this knowledge is supposed to enable; iii) why people arenāt performing these behaviors or actions already. This final piece allows us to explore other, non-knowledge āgapsā (to borrow a phrase from Julie Dirksen), like skills, motivation, habits, environment and communication.
With a clearer understanding of the problem in mind, we then look to establish success metrics for our intervention - if this is the problem weāre solving, how will we know if weāve solved it?
šļø āSee you in six months!ā
Now that weāve taken the time to identify the right solution to the right problem, weāre pretty much out of the woods, right? Well, not quite.
Whether youāre designing e-learning, simulations, or workshops, creating learning experiences takes time. And in that time, thereās a risk that the need youāre serving may become less relevant, particularly if youāre not regularly consulting with the business. Ross refers to this as ābuilding in siloā.
To avoid this pitfall, we take an iterative approach to content development, hosting weekly check-ins with the project team to review progress, share feedback, and adapt our approach as new information emerges or needs change.
ā¾ āBuild it and they will come!ā
L&D has a slightly weird relationship with engagement. On the one hand, weāre obsessed with measuring it, even when it doesnāt tell us anything useful about the impact of our interventions. At the same time, we donāt always think about how weāre going to generate it in the first place. As Ross puts it, we ālaunch the best thing since sliced bread but tell no one about it. Only to bemoan why no one is using it.ā
Ideally, if youāre solving a real problem that you know learners care about, it shouldnāt be too difficult to get them to engage with it. But that doesnāt mean it will happen by magic, or that you can simply ābuild it and they will comeā. This isnāt Field of Dreams.
If youāre struggling with any of these moments of learning-design danger and need some help, then contact custom@mindtools.com or reply to this newsletter from your inbox.
š§ On the podcast
Have you ever found a learning technology that you were convinced was going to transform your organization, only to have your IT team act as a blocker? Maybe they were being difficult, but maybe you just hadn't involved them early enough?
In this weekās episode of The Mind Tools L&D Podcast, Jon Baxter, founder of Baxter Thompson Associates, joined Ross Garner and Owen to share the benefits of strategic partnering with IT.
You can hear the full episode here šš¼
You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, Spotify or the podcast page of our website. Want to share your thoughts? Get in touch @RossDickieMT, @RossGarnerMT or #MindToolsPodcast
š Deep dive
For various reasons, weāve been experimenting with digital badges here at Mind Tools. So a recent study from researchers at Purdue University and the University of Hawaiāi at MÄnoa caught my eye.
In the study, the team explored the self-reported attitudes of graduate students in an online instructional design Masterās program. 211 of those students responded to a course improvement survey, and 122 of those - like us - work in corporate learning. The team also conducted 14 interviews.
What was interesting about the study is that digital badges were used to create an ePortfolio, demonstrating professional competency across up to 16 areas. In effect, these badges broke down the formal qualification (a Masterās degree) into a series of more discrete achievements: helping students not just gather credit but to leave the program with a demonstrable set of skills.
As one participant noted:
āI like to be able to kind of see like, hereās my learning pathway even, and hereās the progress Iām making.... And so, it really helps me feel like, hereās this benchmark that Iām meeting along the way, hereās the progress Iām making, hereās how far I have to go. It just kind of pushes and motivates me...ā
On the other hand, even though participants were instructional designers, their awareness of badges prior to the program was often limited. They found the process of gaining badges frustrating, and had concerns about implementing badges in workplaces that might consider them ājuvenileā, difficult to administer and lacking in value.
Weāll report back on our own experiments with badging in due course.
Watson, S. L., Watson, W. R., Huang, W., Janakiraman, S., & Dufault, K. H. (2023). Student Attitudes Toward Digital Badges for Instructional Design Competency-Based Education. Social Education Research, 307-326.
š¹ Missing links
š° The replication crisis is getting expensive
For years, our pal Owen has been discussing the āreplication crisisā in social science: a process whereby a charismatic researcher finds a startling discovery, captures the imagination of millions with a TED talk, and is then criticized when no one can replicate their original finding. In this post, Tim Harford discusses the next chapter in this scandal, as big names on both sides of the debate become involved in a defamation case.
š¤ Your CEO is an AI and has advice for you as a learning professional
Our friend Will Thalheimer is working on a new book. In the book, Will writes as if heās addressing a CEO, telling them how they can manage their learning function to get a competitive advantage. In this article, Will attempts to turn the tables by prompting ChatGPT to act as a CEO, and asking the AI to provide advice for L&D professionals. The conversation makes for interesting reading, not just for the suggestions ChatGPT makes, but for the way it responds to the prompts Will gives it.
š What the longest study on human happiness found is the key to a good life
Since 1938, the Harvard Study of Adult Development has been investigating what makes people flourish. The answer? Good relationships that are nurtured over time. While this might sound straight forward, the trappings of modern life can make it difficult to carve out time for those we love. In 2018, for example, the average American dedicated 11 hours a day to solitary activities, such as watching television or listening to the radio. So, if thereās someone in your life whom you cherish and wish you could see more often, this is your prompt to pick up the phone and give them a call.
š And finallyā¦
We often wonder how our end users feel about our workplace learning content, so use focus groups, interviews, surveys and observations to find out.
Or we could just check Instagram:
š Thanks!
Thanks for reading The L&D Dispatch from Mind Tools! If youād like to speak to us, work with us, or make a suggestion, you can email custom@mindtools.com.
Or just hit reply to this email!
Hey hereās a thing! If youāve reached all the way to the end of this newsletter, then you must really love it!
Why not share that love by hitting the button below, or just forward it to a friend?