… and … their inconsistencies in language and concepts and models and methods and tools and techniques, and their conflicts in messages and meanings, and their general mess – in general.
A performer/learner with a lot of PRIOR KNOWLEDGE can slough through all of this and that – and find meaning, learning. And then perform better.
Newbies just get lost. And frustrated. And often quit after all of that expense of bringing them onboard.
And that is the result of poor stewardship of shareholder equity – and not good for any Stakeholder category.
And of course – collections of Content never (almost never) have the Context in mind – or embedded in that Content – the right performance-driven learning objectives, the right definitions, the right demonstrations, and the right application exercises – to cause LEARNING to occur that is related to the Performance Requirements of that Learner/Performer.
Where is the dividing line between too-new and experienced-enough – for the move from pure Formal Learning to pure Informal Learning? And what about the great middle when there ought to be a gradual, shifting blend?
Can that be generalized? Or is that unique to the profession/job? Or to each individual person?
This is our challenge in L&D – Learning and Development.
And it is, as they say: same as it ever was.
For those creating Learning Paths – a.k.a.: T&D Paths, Learning Roadpmaps, Development Roadmaps, Training Blueprints, Training Planning Guides, Development Guides, etc., etc. (I have been doing these since 1982 and the names are always a changin’) this is not new – brought about by the new technologies and their affordances (that’s new speak too – the old speak was: their utility/utilities).
Over the years the advance of The Shiny – the new and different and BETTER (not really) has given many false hope that THIS IS THE KEY.
It’s not the mode of delivery – which can impact some types of content and learning – it’s the Instructional Design – Design for Learning versus design for deployment. How to sort the wheat – the good stuff – from the chaff – the not-so-good stuff?
Analysis of Performance Competence Requirements. And continued Analysis of the enabling Knowledge/Skills required to perform competently.
And if you are interested in improving performance BEYOND Learning – then it’s continued Analysis of all of the other enablers of Process Performance – because people are performing in Processes whether those Processes are formally recognized or not. Many if not most Processes in an Enterprise are Informal – which BTW is not a call for spending more time and money on making or embracing Informal Processes!
Formal Process and Formal Learning via Formal Training, performance-based Training and not Topic-based Training – is best for the newbies – and largely inappropriate for those with enough PRIOR KNOWLEDGE.
The trick, as they say, is to figure out when one newbie crosses over enough to the other side of that divide.
How you think about the organization of your “ever changing” content is critical to how you would do analysis in the first place, and how you would do design in the second place, and how you would chunk development in the third place.
My PACT Processes for T&D, Learning and Knowledge Management address that – for analysis…
… and then for the design of the T&D/L&D Path – and the sorting of the good content for the inappropriate content (might be good for others) and the engineering or architecting of it into a Path and Planning Guide…
These books are available as both Paperback books and Kindle e-books – see more info here.
# # #