For several years many learning organizations have been caught up in the fervor of the Internet. Many of us who design learning programs assume that all the traditional rules of learning have changed. Quite the contrary. The Internet is simply another delivery mechanism. The assumption that the Internet changes all the rules is a bad one which can lead to the erosion of effective learning experiences.
I don't think the Internet alone is an effective enabler of a smarter workforce. Many aspects of its limitations actually tend to corrupt the learning process. Over the past several years, software companies have foisted tools upon us that by design are built to limit the dissemination of information (you don't want me to start my boilerplate rant on the evils of PowerPoint). These tools may allow for "rapid" display of content, but in effect, they are actually raising a distortion field, and negatively impacting what the Internet's strengths are. The plethora of these ineffective learning programs is doing nothing but frustrating the learner and leading to a general malaise about training in general (when's the last time you overheard a colleague exclaiming how genuinely excited they were about the thought of taking a "training program"?)
The two pet peeves I have about where we currently are with learning and the Internet are based on two key components of the learning eco-system:
- Bad LMS design. Why are learning management systems continually dictating the learner's experience? They are simply front-end interfaces to databases. Most are designed to limit and constrain the experience they are inherently trying to offer: access to content. I have yet to see an LMS designed with the learner in mind. We need to stop allowing engineers and technologists (as designers of the LMS) to be the only deciders when adopting or building a platform. We need to stop accepting trade-offs when it comes to what we are allowed to do with the technology that is available to us. We need to assert leadership, and demand accountability from all areas of the organization when it comes to supporting learning initiatives that actually work. We need to return to our roots when it comes to generating distinctive and unique learning programs tied to our organization's business goals by leveraging approaches that will help increase the organization's market leadership.
- Flawed technology usually thrives as it incubates. As the technology ages, however, it must become complementary to the computational environment. Differing interfaces and the apparent lack of standards over the years has cost the learner much frustration. After growing comfortable with one user interface, the commitment necessary to learning a new interface is a high-cost factor to ask of our learners. There is a cost to a lack of cohesion between all the objects involved in a learning intervention.
We are just now beginning to emerge from the monstrously large distortion field of the Internet. Experimentation eventually leads us through the morass and into clarity. This is where the traditional rules apply the most.
The only value a learning organization brings to the company is measured by sustained improvement in performance compared to the identified gap before the intervention began. Without this, the learning organization can actually become an economic albatross for the company.
Technology itself does not provide an advantage when creating an engaging learning experience. Hand me a coke bottle and a cork-screw and I can create a compelling learning experience. The organizations that succeed with technology for learning are those that fully understand how the new technology can complement their learning initiatives, which should be rooted in strict fundamentals. This is good news for organizations that have established good learning principles. Understanding and leveraging the possibilities afforded us by new technology does not mean we have to radically re-invent how we do things. Which begs the question,
why are so many of us creating such bad learning?In our quest to do what is new, we have failed to realize that what is new is really the same as what is old. The fundamental goal of delivering information to people to improve organizational performance remains unchanged. What you have is simply another alternative to how you deliver that information.
