In my last Dispatch, I created a poll to ask you how you felt about AI in L&D.
Of the 22 of you who responded to the poll (you are my favorites), 64% of you reported feeling ‘mostly excited’ about AI, while 36% felt ‘mostly fatigued’.
Putting aside any methodological issues with the poll, I’m going to pretend for the purposes of this newsletter that our sample is representative, and that the majority of you feel excited about AI.
Turning quickly to more robust survey data, we know from Donald Taylor and Egle Vinauskaite’s recent report that this excitement is primarily driven by AI’s potential to help L&D teams create content faster while reducing costs.
But another key area of interest is AI’s role in enabling ‘adaptive learning’.
While this term means different things to different people (see the podcast section below for an in-depth discussion), it can generally be understood as content that adapts to a learner’s unique needs, skills, and knowledge.
Clearly, generative AI can be leveraged to help designers build adaptive experiences at scale.
But AI is not a prerequisite for adaptive learning.
In fact, it’s possible to design simple adaptive experiences using nothing more than an authoring tool and some good ole fashioned know-how.
Here’s an example of how we do this at Mind Tools:
💡 The project
I’m currently working with a client to develop code-of-conduct training.
Whereas most courses in this genre seek to re-create the organization’s policy in e-learning form — making it ‘fun’ and ‘engaging’ — we’re taking a different approach.
At the outset of the design process, we assumed that everyone taking the course would have read the code of conduct in full.
That might sound naively optimistic, but whether or not our learners read the code of conduct is actually beside the point.
Ultimately, the goal of code-of-conduct training is not familiarity with a document. It’s better decision-making. And we can test learners’ decision-making ability before we force them to wade through content that they should already have read.
🔧 The solution
In practice, this involved building an experience around banks of realistic, scenario-based questions.
If learners make the correct decision in a given scenario, they get to proceed to the next question. If they make a wrong decision, they receive corrective feedback before answering another question from the bank.
While this approach requires additional effort upfront (writing good scenario questions is hard work!), it has several important benefits.
🚀 The results
Firstly, by meeting the learner where they are, the course ‘adapts’ (in a loose sense) to their unique needs.
If they’re new to the organization, or if they haven’t bothered to read the code, the course will likely take longer to complete, providing additional opportunities for practice.
By contrast, if they’ve read the code of conduct in detail, or if they’re re-certifying, total seat time should be reduced.
Either way, by testing learners upfront, we can deliver content that is tailored to their individual gaps, rather than forcing everyone along the same path.
Additionally, the time invested in creating question banks reduces the need for the client to develop a separate ‘refresher’ module in the future.
As every learner should receive a slightly different set of questions each time they complete the course, we can be relatively confident that the same experience will continue to test decision-making rather than memory.
🤖 So, what of AI?
Earlier, I said you don’t need AI to create adaptive experiences. And that’s true. But it sure would make it easier!
Like most of you, I’m excited about AI’s potential when it comes to adaptive learning. For my money, this is perhaps the most promising use case for AI in L&D.
But it’s worth remembering that you don’t need a shiny new tool to start experimenting with adaptive approaches. The dusty one on the shelf will do just fine.
Interested in working with the Mind Tools Custom Team? Want to share your thoughts on this week’s Dispatch? Then get in touch by emailing custom@mindtools.com or reply to this newsletter from your inbox.
🎧 On the podcast
Adaptive courses come in many forms, but generally respond to the learner’s existing knowledge and skills: thereby optimizing the time to completion. But do they improve learning outcomes?
In this week’s episode of The Mind Tools L&D Podcast, Ross G and Owen are joined by Roy de Vries, Learning Innovator at aNewSpring, to explore the results of an experiment they ran to compare adaptive vs linear courses.
Check out the episode below. 👇
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
📖 Deep dive
I came across this week’s deep dive through a LinkedIn post from Nicholas Thompson.
In the post, Thompson cites a new research paper exploring the effects of banning smartphones in middle schools.
Combining administrative data with survey data, the study shows that banning smartphones improves educational performance and mental-health outcomes for girls, and decreases bullying for everyone. It also shows that the effects are larger for girls from low socio-economic backgrounds.
One of the most interesting findings from the study is that students at schools with strict policies on smartphones (no access) experienced larger increases in educational performance than peers in schools with more lenient policies (access during breaks). This suggests that the mere prospect of smartphone use may be detrimental to learning.
Abrahamsson, S. (2024). ‘Smartphone Bans, Student Outcomes and Mental Health’
👹 Missing links
🏋️♂️ In a job interview, this is how to acknowledge your weaknesses
When asked to describe your biggest weakness in a job interview, it can be tempting to respond with a humble brag like ‘I’m too much of a perfectionist’, or to go full Michael Scott — ‘I work too hard. I care too much.’. But, as Adam Grant writes in this newsletter, research shows that your best strategy is to focus on portraying yourself accurately rather than positively. And if you do want to trumpet your strengths, do so with humor rather than feigned humility.
❓Salman Rushdie is not who you think he is
In this episode of The Ezra Klein Show, Salman Rushdie talks about his latest book, Knife, in which he reflects on the attack that nearly killed him. Much of the discussion focuses on the extent to which the attack was driven by a perception of Rushdie that was formed through media, and perpetuated by individuals who had never met him or read any of his books. At some point, the imagined version of Rushdie started to become more ‘real’ to people than the man himself. So real, that it led someone to attempt his murder.
👾 AI in the workplace — separating fact from fiction
In this excellent video, our pal Ross Stevenson offers reassurance that, despite what your LinkedIn feed might be telling you, you’re not falling behind when it comes to AI. Of course, that isn’t to say that organizations should be complacent. As Ross points out, people are eager to learn more about AI tools. And if there aren’t clear guidelines in place around how colleagues should use them to best effect, they’ll likely end up in the ‘dark doldrums of Reddit and other sites’ finding the answers for themselves. Sounds like a job for L&D to me!
👋 And finally…
I spent last week on holiday in Spain, and this video perfectly captures my feelings before, during, and after the trip. With the visual aid of cats, naturally.
👍 Thanks!
Thanks for reading The L&D Dispatch from Mind Tools! If you’d 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 here’s a thing! If you’ve 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?