We know workplace learning programs fail to a troublesome extent. The problem is that people will only learn if they are interested (intrinsically!), yet organizations tend to plan learning experiences when and how they are able to deliver, hoping to "catch" as many target group members and their managers in a mood that would ensure transfer, hence leading to the expected performance hike. This is gambling - unless your Learning Architect is able to design experiences that will literally pull a large majority of people into a state where their brain tells them "This is worthwhile!", thus directing their (full?) attention towards the enjoyable learning experience.
Basically liking what's going on triggers attention, then the combined effect of paying attention and enjoying the experience predicts the use of new information and its later accurate recall.
Like everything else in life, chemistry rules! And it can be measured too - there are already wearables with algorithms that measure heat rates (indicative of the attention investment) and converting them into the oxytocin levels (indicative of the emotional resonance with the learning experience); when measured in real-time, this smart use of technology allows learning designers to discover the spikes and declines in connectivity with the experience.
So what can the learning alchemists do to lead immersion? Here's a short list that might serve as a fundamental checklist of the effectiveness of workplace learning:
- Measure as closely as possible to real-time; you might not have the state-of-the-art technology, but even a simple slido or polling solution will make the difference. Facilitating learning is a science, and science does not exist without meaningful data. Worried about cost? Just do the math of the direct investment in learning and imagine 99% of it is lost if you don't do it right...then invest a fraction of it in measurement & continuous design implementation (that is cost optimization ;)
- Run A/B testing for mass learning programs; sometimes it's really difficult to choose between a game and a simulation, or between a case study and a scenario-based experiment, regardless of how well you believe you know your target audience. There are a ton of biases that come to play in learning design and you'll be surprised by how often they lead you to the wrong decision that would make your learning program fail by design.
- Enhance and expand the confidentiality level associated with all your learning experiences; fear of consequences is the antithesis of the oxytocin needed for successful learning. Managers will always pressure to know what's going on in the learning environment, and it's the job of the L&D professionals to make sure that only aggregated data and individual future-oriented recommendations surface, in order to maintain a psychologically safe learning environment.
- Put all the money on interactive, engaging, collaborative learning methods; forget the death by ppt-reading and teaching approaches!
- Ensure you allow the right time investment to secure your learning objectives. The requirements to keep learning activities time expenditure at a minimum creates the proverbial egg-and-hen dilemma: not enough time allocation leads to ineffective learning, which further leads to productivity and performance crisis that routinely generate the lack of time allocation for learning...
- Pre-test information and skill levels; nothing kills the joy of learning like the wrong calibration of the learning level. Getting people bored (by calibrating too low) or confused (by setting the bar too high) are sure immersion-failure recipes.
- Focus on bite-sized / microlearning / social learning solutions or the attention component of the immersion will not take place. Alternating learning methods is the second key ingredient to retaining attention, hence facilitating learning.
