I’ve talked before about how our design task will need to accommodate both the formal learning and the informal job resources, but as I’ve been thinking about (and working on) this model, it occurs to me that there is another way to think about learning design that we have to consider.
The first notion is that we should not design our formal learning solutions without thinking about what the performance support aspects are as well. We need to co-design our performance support solutions along with our preparation for performance so that they mutually reflect (and reference) each other. Our goal has to be to look at the total development and execution of the task.
The other way I’ve now been thinking of it, however, is to think about designing the workflow and the learning ‘flow’ together. Visualize the formal and informal learning flows as components within an overall workflow. You want the performer focusing on the task, and learning tools ‘to hand’ within the task flow. Ideally, the person is able to find the answers, or even learn some new things, while still in the work context. (Context is so important in learning that we spend large amounts to recreate context away from our existing work context!)
The point being, not only is formal learning and informal learning co-designed, but they’re both co-designed in the context of understanding the flow of performance, so you’re designing the work/learning context. Which means we’re incorporating user-interface and user-experience design, as well as resource design (e.g. technical communications) on top of our learning design. And probably more.
Now, are you ready to buy this? Because I’d talked myself to this point and then realized: “but wait, there’s more. If you call now, we’ll throw in” an obvious extension. To be covered in the next and last post of this series (tying it back to the context of explorability and incremental advantage I started with in my last post.
I wonder if what you are talking about is what is used at non-traditional universities: the learning contract. It would seem to me that part of the training should be to develop (negotiate) a training contract that will both fit the needs of the organization and provide the learning support of needed by the employee.
I could see this as working something like this. As each department develops performance goals, they sit down with the training department and the employee to identify what needs to be done to achieve those goals and how the training department can support those needs. After the learning contracts are developed, the training department can offer formal training (especially if there is a common need within the organization), but also develop resources to help support the individual who’s needs might be more individualized. As part of the annual performance review, the learning contract would also be reviewed to identify how much of the learning goals have also been met. This process allows for more pin pointed training, a better understanding of training needs on the individual and organizational levels, and a tie between learning and performance.
Virginia, I wasn’t thinking of learning contracts, tho’ I’m a fan of the concept. I very much like the notion of developing individual job aids (stay tuned for tomorrow’s post!). And your model is along the lines of the way I was going. I was thinking more, however, of looking at the person’s task, and looking at the barriers they find, and then co-designing job aids and the learning.
The learning would be accessible from the performance environment, and designed to maximally complement and minimally remove the learner from the work context. Yes, there might well be ‘go away, learn this, come back’ but we’d try to put the emphasis on ‘let’s layer this across the task’.
Slow learning, drip-irrigation metaphor, etc for the formal stuff, and as much as possible tools ‘to hand’ to solve problems. Job aids, checklists, quick question asking/answering tools, search mechanisms all aligned to the task and available on demand.
Does that make sense? Which actually links nicely to your thoughts on pin-point training, individualized performance, and linking learning and performance. Work = learning!