My Learning Design Pet Peeves

For those of you who know me, or have worked me with me, it’s probably fair to say that I can have a reputation to "tell it like it is". Personally I prefer the term “Positive Disruptor”. Either way, my need to question traditional learning design comes from a very honest place: I simply believe that L&D has to let go of some out-dated thinking and really consider learner-centric design.

In no particular order, this is my personal list of learning design pet peeves.

Learning Objective Overkill

Yes, writing LOs is a solid part of good design. I am sorry to break it to you, but your learner does not care about them. They are not concerned about the subtleties between analyse, detail, and describe. And your learner cares even less about LOs in microlearning or digital content. A 4 minute video on YouTube only retains 60% of the audience. 25% are gone in the first 30 seconds.  We cannot waste valuable time on listing LOs. Want your learners to know what the content is going to be? Title it properly.

“Getting to Know You” Icebreakers

 “Tell 2 truths and a lie about yourself”, “20 questions”, “Find someone who…”. These are some examples that are all variations on the same theme: make people share something personal about themselves. I know there are L&D people who love these exercises. If you fall into that camp, you are likely an extrovert. I also get that the outcome is team building. Why do I dislike these icebreakers? When a learner walks into a classroom, they enter into a contract with you: teach me something I did not know. They did not agree to have their personal details on display.

I do believe in the power of icebreakers, but they cannot be gratuitous. Time in the classroom is expensive real estate. Maximise it. Design icebreakers that highlight and reinforce learning objectives.

Avatars and Stock Photos

Trust me, I get it. Learning budgets are tight and it is just so tempting to reach for that pre-packaged rapid authoring tool bundle of characters in delightful poses. When used poorly, it can make your learning look contrived and childish. Learning content about teamwork accompanied by stock photo of people jumping happily in the air; A module about problem solving with a photograph of a woman in a thoughtful pose and a light bulb above her head? Your learners are adults – treat them as such.

Can’t hire a graphic designer? Text can be powerful, too. This is by far one of my favourite examples of a text-driven design: www.playspent.org. Okay, it has had some graphic design treatment, but it could have also been just as impactful without.

Lack of Diversity

This is somewhat related to above. Nothing makes me cringe more when I see “John Smith” used in a module, or a video featuring ten middle-aged, white, men. Now, there is nothing wrong with each independently. But adult learners need to contextualise to internalise content. At a basic level, they should see themselves reflected in the learning environment. Your case studies, imagery, and names, should be as diverse as the audience they are intended for. Otherwise, you have a lot of John and Jane Does who have tossed your learning aside.

Turnkey Learning

We’ve all seen eLearning content structured like this:

Welcome to Project Management…In this course you will learn X,Y, and Z…There are 5 phases to project management…Let’s look at Phase 1…Phase 1 has 3 sub-steps (1,2, and 3)…Drag and drop the sub-steps with their definitions…Knowledge check question! How many phases are there in project management?

Yes, this covers learning objectives and gives an overview, but it’s formulaic and predictable. It’s also boring. It probably uses clipart.

With a little bit of rework, this could become highly dynamic content. For example, begin the module with an overview of a project that struggled during each of the phases. Then do a dissection of the issues. Follow up with a walk-through of the same project and phases, but how to remedy the pitfalls. The content still matches the learning objectives, but has more impact and includes context.

These are my personal pet peeves and I sure many of these will be up for debate. I would also enjoy hearing your thoughts. Have I surpassed positive disruptor and become troublemaker?

Like what you have read? I’d be grateful for a share, like, or comment. Really like what you have read? I am currently consulting and always happy to have a conversation about L&D.

Is Learning the Biggest Loser?

It’s no secret that weight loss and dieting are a multi-billion dollar industry. Magazine racks are a jumble of headlines screaming, “fit, tone, calories, detox”. Yet, most studies concede that around 85% of diets fail.

So what does this have to do with learning?

Quite a bit. In both weight loss and L&D, there is an end goal to change behaviour. There’s not much difference between motivating someone to hit the gym three times a week, and implementing a new workflow. The obstacles of willingness and motivation are the same. Most people resist change, particularly if they are already comfortable doing things a certain way.

Therefore, a successful learning programme has to take steps to address these stumbling blocks. Too often I see L&D solutions that are applied formulas: a robust needs assessment to generate performance outcomes, which then become learning objectives that some Instructional Designer can write tidy copy against. Tick box learning. Great in theory, but learners are not software that can be programmed.

If you have a spare hour, watch an episode of any of the hundreds of weight loss TV shows. There are carefully constructed methods used to encourage and incentivise candidates to adopt new healthy habits. These could be the promise of a reward or the wake-up call of a medical exam. Whatever the methodology, only a fraction of time is spent on the how-tos of calorie counting and balanced diet. The focus is on developing the why.

Yes, I can already hear learning professionals saying that we already build WIIFMinto our content, or that you use a 70-20-10 approach. Those are all beneficial, but are hardly transformational. These are platitudes that make us L&D folks feel like we have cuddled a bundle of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Consider the following personal example (details changed to protect the innocent): A company wants to adopt a culture of collaboration. They approach L&D. After a lot of performance consulting conversations and a detailed needs assessment, the solution implemented is a mandatory one-day learning event on how to collaborate and why it is important. There was a catered lunch.

Fast forward a few years and collaboration is stagnant. Sure, people loved the course. There were loads of job aids and coaching tools. People tweeted about it for days and the Level 1 evaluations were the highest ever. There was no ROI because a) there was nothing to address the ongoing motivation; and b) they had a body of staff who were hired based on their ability to be individual contributors and high achievers.

For large-scale learning programmes to truly deliver, I believe we need to think in terms of broader change management. In the case of the Collaboration Collapse above, these are a few things I would’ve done differently:

• Hire some collaborators into leadership positions. You don’t see successful overweight fitness instructors for a reason.
• Partner with (gasp) other departments such as HR, Marketing, and Communications, to keep the motivation factor. For example, agree with HR that evidence of collaboration is tied directly to performance bonus.
• Eliminate temptation. Those employees who are not onboard with the program need to go.

As a learning professional, I could build all sorts of courses, microlearning, and job aids, on how to lose weight. Yet all of those solutions are no better than the noise screaming from the headlines on the magazine stand. I can design a multitude of evaluations that prove a learner can distinguish the nutritional differences between an orange and a chocolate biscuit. It still does not influence the daily decision to go for a jog versus binge on carbs.

I’m not suggesting that good instructional design practice be thrown away. Simply that learning needs to tackle the motivation factors and collaborate with other departments to achieve change. Otherwise, your courses could become the proverbial Thighmaster collecting dust at the back of your LMS closet.

 Like what you have read? I’d be grateful for a share, like, or comment. Really like what you have read? I am an L&D consultant and always happy to have a conversation, debate, or problem solve.