The Continuous Learning Environment: Surviving Learning Solution Discovery

In my days as alearning strategy consultant, I always began my discovery discussions with thequestion, “Do you have a trainingstrategy?” Rarely did I receive a negative answer or a quizzical look; nor didI expect any. So, why ask a question when you already know the answer? Simple –it set up the next question that served as the real stimulus for conversationand meaningful discovery.

“Do you have alearning strategy?” Cue the quizzical looks of silent wondering if I had notjust asked that question. Without waiting for an answer, I followed thatquestion with an immediate third question.

“More importantly,do you have a continuous learning strategy?” At this point, I often saw theclient’s eyes glaze over and a few even began to blow spit bubbles – a perfectresponse – and a perfect set-up to incite revolutionary thinking. Thinking hadto be revolutionary to consider “continuous learning” as an acceptable shiftworthy of breaking the traditional mindset of training. Training still plays arole, and always will, but as a subset of continuous learning, where the focusis on something very different – creation of sustained human capability.

Very often, myclients had a technology solution in mind and needed a consultant to validatetheir thinking … or worse … have someone to blame when it failed to deliver thedesired results. This phenomenon is similar to our internal clients who have atraining solution in mind before they contact the training department tovalidate their requested solution. We have perpetuated that thinking byresponding as training order-takers. The age-old hammer and nail thinking,where organizations throw training at every performance gap, is a problem thatwe created – and it gets worse. If your organization has a learning managementsystem (LMS), the bias affecting the ultimate solution may be even morelocked-in than ever. The techno-zealots decree, “All training must reside onthe LMS!” I think not, though I am a big fan of appropriately utilizingtechnology. It may sound like a contradiction for me to say this, but here goes– “Step away from the technology!”

That may soundextreme, but learners increasingly find the need to learn in the same environmentwhere they work – their work context.In fact, the bulk of our learning environment continues to shift away from theclassroom, away from formal training, and closer to the actual work performed.In a 2004 interview, Jonathon Levy, an e-Learning visionary, predicted: “Overthe next 12-18 months, the end game will finally begin to come into view astraditional learning structures give way to more powerful performance supportintegration.” Integration into what? Into the workcontext!

Mr. Levy’sprediction implied we would not always be in the classroom when we learn.Instead, learning moments will increasingly confront our learners withinworkflows and processes. The need to learn becomes immediate, more urgent, andoften encountered in a largely unstructured and uncontrolled context. This is adirect opposite to the stable realm of the formal classroom.

Again, in 2007,Mr. Levy confirmed this trend in a larger scope when he said, “Corporateuniversities will begin to question their positioning as a ’university,’ andsome enlightened Chief Learning Officers (CLOs) will reject the academic modeland begin to reposition themselves as performance support and change managementspecialists.” The references to performancesupport and changemanagement in the same sentence denotes two major changes:

• equipping learners to learn within theirworkflow (performance support); and
• implementing holistic changes in learningmethodologies necessary to drive sustainable capability (change management).

The flow of work,and the relentless demand for producing results, represents key drivers of thecontinuous learning environment. And, of course, most of the learning isoccurring outside of the classroom. 

My purpose in thisarticle is to introduce the necessity of expanded discovery as essential todefining critical, design-influencing attributes of a continuous learningenvironment. Forget definingknowledge and skill requirements, at least for now. The starting point, and theprimary focus of this expanded discovery, is the environment where learnersconfront opportunities to learn. Learning opportunities span the whole spectrumfrom premeditated moments (for example, new employee orientation, or annualrecertification training), to unplanned, unstructured, and uncontrolledmoments, often manifested in the middle of a workflow.

Regardless of theend of the spectrum on which they arise, there are environmental attributesthat can invalidate the best design efforts if not considered early in thedesign process. There are three categories of attributes within the learningenvironment:

• Space– a blend of physical location, workflow, risk, and urgency
• Media– the most compelling mix of mode and venue
• Systems– the most effective and efficient application of technology

All the attributes that fall under space,media, and systems combine to drive or restrain design decisions. It isessential to define these attributes to ensure the learning solution deliverson one global objective, which is to enable a sustained capability.

Traditional designpractices do not typically consider these elements during discovery (also knownas the training needs assessment). In many cases, the ability to accomplish thisdegree of discovery represents a competency gap within the trainingorganization. Recall Jonathon Levy’s 2007 prediction that describes the shiftto performance support. That shift centers around the learners in their workcontext, with the focus zeroed in on sustainable performance and outcomes.

To produce anoutcome, the learner must “do” something, not just “know” something. Once more,we exceed the tenets of knowledge and skills found at the root of traditionaltraining design. It may sound as though Instructional Systems Design (ISD)methodology is getting a bad rap. Far from it! My team uses it daily to designsolutions to improve performance. The difference now is the starting point ofour discovery efforts:

• Identify the performance outcomes to beproduced, and
• The work context where the learner producesthem.

It is within the workcontext where the moments of learningneed take shape. Keep in mind, individualized learning moments reflect upon thelevel of knowledge, skill, and capability of the learner. Permit me to add somecontextual definition around some of the jargon I have thrown your way, andthen we can dig into the discovery components. Let us begin with the moments oflearning need.

The five moments of learning need

Learning momentsare those snippets in time where capability and competency must simultaneouslyco-exist to produce sustainable outcomes. Unfortunately, my learning momentswill be different from yours, as will yours be different from the nextlearner’s moment. Safe to say then, these individualized learning moments makea one-size-fits-all learning solution impossible, if not obsolete. Not only arelearning solutions impacted by the environment, they are impacted by thecapability of the learner. The concept of individualized needs alone takes uswell beyond the limits of traditional, linear training design models.

Individualizedlearning moments are as continuous as the work performed. As such, we face anon-standard set of variables that drive training design decisions. Where thelearner stands on their path from novice to mastery-level competency influencesthe frequency and depth of learning support required to complete a task.Likewise, their degree of competency affects which learning moment will arise,and when. Conrad Gottfredson has identified five moments of learning need:

1. Learningsomething new or for the first time
2. Learning more of something
3. Trying to remember something
4. Adjusting performance/behavior because something haschanged
5. Figuring out what to do when something goes wrong orfails

Any learning solutionwe create must consider the work environment within which the learners confronttheir moment(s) of learning need. Additionally, since continuous learning is anon-going process, the learner could transition through several, if not all, ofthe five moments of need on their path to competency. Odds are increasinglygood that several of those moments are going to occur in the middle of aworkflow, not in a classroom.

Different learningsolutions will likely be required to satisfy the variability of learningmoments. It follows then that our design methodology must be holistic enough toanticipate that variability. Based on when and where learning moments arise, the mix of attributes related to space,media, and systems may also differ. This simple fact, that when and wherematter, implies the existence of timelines. This makes sense when we join timeto the learners’ path to competency, that is, their learning continuum. Hence,accurate discovery must include the space, media, and systems attributes of a learning environment,as well as the learner’s location along the learning continuum.

An iterative model for the learning continuum: PD&R

Learning momentsare as unique as the learners who must overcome them as they progress along thelearning curve from novice to mastery levels of competency. Since work iscontinuous, why would learning to perform that work not be continuous as well?In a continuous learning environment, each learner will follow an individualizedlearning continuum that overlaps with the actual work and tasks accomplished.This learning continuum is discrete for each individual user, since no twolearners take the same path at the same pace to reach mastery. In fact, thelearning path a learner follows – a path that spans both formal learning (training)and informal learning (job aids, collaboration, coaching, and so on) must fitindividual timing and individual needs. That is a tall order for ourtraditional design models.

A keycharacteristic of a learning continuum is reinforcing an important thread ofcontinuity between the learning methodology and the work and tasks performed.The learning continuum serves as a foundational design tenet that can be bestdescribed using a three-phase model – Prepare, Deploy, and Reinforce (P,D, &R).

• PreparationPhase – Establishes a state of readiness in learners prior toparticipation in formal learning interventions. Emphasis in the preparationphase addresses, defines, and delivers theory to the learner for maximum impactin the next phase in the learning continuum. Preparation could be as minimal assharing an agenda in advance of the formal learning event, or more complexwhere completion of a related work activity or an on-line course are requiredas pre-requisites.
• DeploymentPhase – Represents the application (delivery, or consumption) ofthe actual learning intervention. The event could include a formal learningprogram that utilizes instructor-led classroom training, self-paced, on-linelearning, live distance (synchronous) learning, a Webinar to a remote audience,a collaborative event, or a blend of all of the above. Surprisingly, aneffective preparation phase can dramatically enhance the deployment phase.Adequate preparation can reduce formal training time. Handling the theoryduring preparation enables redeployment of time and activity in classroomtraining events. The learners spend more time on application where they engagein interactivity, collaboration exercises, role-plays, use of job aids inscenario-based simulations, etc. Emphasis shifts heavily toward demonstratingability to “do” rather than validating their ability to “remember.”
• ReinforcementPhase – Represents the most critical of the three phases of the learningcontinuum, and the most extended phase in terms of time. Reinforcement promotesimplementation. Reinforcement extends the knowledge retention necessary foreffective execution that drives sustainability. The reinforcement phase oftenincludes the use of Performer Support (job aids, quick reference materials,coaching guides, help-desk support tools, and the like) and other methods offollow-up. The reinforcement phase also serves as fertile ground forinstructional designers to harvest feedback that indicate the need forfollow-up programs or improved content/object design.

Attributes affecting design in a continuous learning environment

So far, we haveadded several new considerations into our discovery efforts that compound ourchallenges as authors of learning solutions:

• The variability, and unpredictability, of thefive learning moments of need,
• When and where those moments occur along the learningcontinuum,
• To whom they occur, and
• The individual’s level of competency at thetime.

These variables complicate ourability to design effective, traditional training that can sustain capability.However, there is still more to consider.

With learningmoments surfacing closer to, if not within, the context of our work, it isessential that we now include the attributes of the learning environment(space, media, and systems) in our discovery efforts. Including theseattributes defines a composite environment that encourages expanded design of aholistic learning solution. Theattributes have degrees of dependency: attributes of space impact mediadecisions, and the composite of space and media attributes influence the mix ofsystems.

Where is thelearner in the learning continuum? Could the activities for each of the threephases of PD&R take place in different locations, using different content,and delivered by different methods? Absolutely! Therefore, when we designholistic solutions, the different phases of PD&R require us to consider thecombined attributes of space, media, and system iteratively. Permit meto put some definition around these three attributes.

Attributes of space

The attributes of spaceare inclusive of physical, geographical, and operational aspects of thelearner’s environment. They are not limited only to the learner. When we considerspace, we must include those who provide support along the continuum as well asthe individual learner. To that end, attributes of space and the variability oflearning moment(s) should include:

• Learning stakeholders 
  • Who are the stakeholders involved in satisfyingthe learner’s moment of need in the phases of P, D, & R? (That is, thelearner, the trainer, the manager, the SME, and so on.)
  • What are the job roles or performancerequirements of the learning stakeholders specific to their work or learningcontext? (That is, the learner’s role or function in their workflow, thetrainer facilitating a virtual classroom session, the subject matter expertanswering a question, the course designer, the manager, the mentor, the HelpDesk, and so on.)  
• Physical location 
  • Where are the learning stakeholders physicallylocated during the learner’s moment(s) of learning need? (For example, at theirdesk, in a classroom, at home, mobile, at the bedside, in a hotel, at aconference, etc.) 
• Work flow 
  • Where is the learner within the context of theworkflow or work process when confronted with the moment(s) of need? (Forexample, using an on-line system while providing care at bedside, seeking(re-)certification through an on-line training program, participating in a liveclassroom event, participating remotely in a Webinar or distance learningvenue, etc.)
• Level of urgency and risk 
  • What is the level of urgency associated with flawlessexecution at the learning moment of need? (For example, planning acertification class event 90 days in the future, or accessing a job-aid“just-in-time” for completing a critical workflow task.) 
  • What is the level of risk if performance is noteffective? (Such as death or injury of a patient, excessive material waste,loss of business continuity, incurring unnecessary costs, and so forth.)  

Attributes of media

The concept of mediaaddresses format (modes and venues) that contributes to a compelling transferof content (information or knowledge). There are dependencies within the spaceattributes to consider that can influence the viability of whatever mediaoptions represent the optimal blend. Consider this common example:

• There is a high level of urgency to perform bythe learner, and 
• The learner is untethered from the corporatenetwork (in other words, using a smart phone).

The two attributesof space shown above preclude consumption of learning designed for a classroomsetting. Therefore, urgency and mobility influence the media blend to servethis learner’s moment. Do not forget – the blend may change – depending uponwhat stage of the learning continuum (P, D, or R) the learner is in at thetime. Sitting in a classroom versus standing at the bedside illustrate twocompletely different venues, and two completely different design considerationsinfluenced solely by attributes of the learner’s work environment.

The scenario aboveis a simple example of a learning moment experienced in the context of actualwork. Most often such moments would occur in the reinforcement phase of thecontinuum. It is entirely possible to emulate this work task in aclassroom-based simulation, that is, in the deployment phase. In the classroom environment, ofcourse, there are absolutely no real-world urgency or risk factors present. Atthe same time, the classroom offers the learner full audio and visual support,instructors to facilitate the scenario face-to-face, and fully wired access tothe corporate network.

Can you see whyintegrating attributes of space and media into the design process is ameaningful consideration? Space attributes in the deployment phase of thelearning continuum were radically different from those in the reinforcementphase and the choices for media varied as a result. Can you also see why theiterative nature of this approach matters? Without iteration, the mediaselection for the deployment phase would not have supported the work contextencountered in reinforcement phase of the learning continuum.

Attributes of blended systems

Understanding thedependencies represented by the media mix delivered within the context of thelearner’s work environment (space) gives us the influencers that drive thethird set of attributes – the systems technology. In reality, a differenttechnology mix may be required to accommodate each phase of the learningcontinuum. The learner may physically be in three different “spaces” and needto consume three different “media” blends. Therefore, technology is not aone-size-fits-all proposition if the objective is effective delivery ofcontinuous learning into the hands of the learner.

LMS systems handleformal learning activities. Electronic Performance Support Systems (EPSS)handle informal “just-in-time” learning demands. Learning Content ManagementSystems (LCMS) do both, but not well enough to serve either camp as astand-alone system. Those three technologies are mainstream systems, but myintent is not to drill down into the virtues of any of them; rather, theconcept of “systems” addressed here is broader than technology platforms.Building a holistic learning technology solution requires consideration of additionalperipheral systems criteria. Following are a few examples of peripheral systems that can influence design decisions:

End-userdevices

• What technology is in the hands of, or is accessibleto, the learner when confronted with their learning moment(s) of need? (Such asindividually assigned computer, shared workstation, DVD player, smart phone,etc.)
• What technology is available to the otherlearning stakeholders? (That is, to the trainer, the manager, the Help Desk,etc.)
• Is more than one device required at differentpoints on the P, D, & R continuum? (Suchas a DVD player for preparing pre-work, a computer used to deploy simulationsin the classroom, or smart phone access to job-aid reinforcement back on theunit.)

Internetaccess

• Is access to the internet required to serve thelearning moment(s), and if so, what bandwidth requirements must be available toaccommodate anticipated content transfer rates? (Are all users on-Net, or arethere non-employees participating using non-company computers; are there 10participants or 200; did you say broadcast quality video to all?)
• How do Internet access requirements differacross the phases of P.D. & R? (Such as on-Net wireless used for preparing pre-work,Ethernet-connected computer used to deploy simulations in the classroom, or off-NetWi-Fi support required for smart phone access to job-aid reinforcement back inthe field.)

Collaboration/connectivity

• Will the learning event take place on-Net, off-Net, or will it be a blend?
• Will there be a broadcast (one-to-many)?
• Will there be a need for interactivity? (Such as polling, Q&A, participant surveys, application sharing, interactive discussion, moderated chat, and so on.)

Accessto content

• Will the system “push” content to the learner, or will the learner download or “pull” content on demand?
• Must the learner remain connected to the network to use the learning asset?
• How will the learner retrieve the content?
• Will the content be searchable? (If so, what are the metadata requirements?)
• Who among the learning stakeholders must have access to the content?
• Do access rights and restrictions vary across roles with access to the content?

Contentrepositories

• Are there re-use requirements that require recording learning programs?
• Where will you archive content?
• Are there special content capabilities supported by the repository? (Static content versus streamed media.)
• Who is accountable for content management and currency?
• Do access permission levels vary across roles with access to the content?
• Is version control important?

Trackingutilization and participation

• Will consumption of the learning asset or participation in the event require a record of participation and completion? If so, describe acceptable recording format. (Training history in the LMS, printed certificate of completion, registration record is sufficient, etc.)
• Will tracking utilization of informal content be required? (How many times did a learner access a specific job aid?)

Evaluation,Testing, and Feedback

• Will consumption of a learning asset or participation in an event require evaluation or testing? If so, describe format. (Hard-copy instrument or on-line access.) 
• How will you capture feedback on object usability and relevance? (Ranking scale embedded within the objects, embedded e-mail response link, and so on.)

Help/Escalation

• How do learners access help? (Help Desk, content owner, subject-matter-expert, or other source.)

Iterative design process

Traditional designmethodologies do not consider attributes of a continuous learning environment,or the concept of learners confronting learning moments along a continuum. Assuch, traditional methodology does not aggressively embrace re-use mentality;hence “objects” tend to be entire modules, and in some cases, entire courses.

The P,D, & Rphases of the learning continuum create excellent opportunities to designsmaller “chunks,” increasing the potential for re-use. To accomplish this“shrinkage,” the designers must look across the P, D, & R continuum at theimplications of how the attributes of space and media differ in each phase. Inother words, design must adopt an iterative approach.  

A learningcontinuum requires the use of blended media modes and venues that servedifferent learning functions and have different renderings depending on the P, D,& R phases where used. This variability can influence the choice ofauthoring platform. The following example illustrates the variety of designoptions, and the need for an iterative approach:

Preparation– On-net wireless used for pre-work completed by the learner from theirlaptop docking station.

• Re-used legacy content authored in PowerPoint.

Deployment–Ethernet-connected computersused to launch simulations in multiple regional office classrooms. Instructorlocated in room 929 of the Philadelphia Marriott. Performer Support objects(job aids) used to support on-line simulations.

• Simulations authored in Captivate.
• Virtual classroom technology used to supportdistance learning.
• Performer Support re-used Captivate screen shotsin hard-copy PDF format.

Reinforcement – Off-Net wireless smart phone supportused by learners to access job-aids on demand. Help Desk personnel accesson-line knowledge base to push Performer Support to learner on demand viae-mail or FAX.

• Captivate objects re-purposed for smart-phonedelivery.
• Hot-key access to Help Desk.
• Performer Support sent to learner by Help Deskre-used same Captivate screen shots for e-mail “push” or printed as hard-copyPDF format for FAX delivery.

As you can see inthe example above, multiple authoring platforms played a role. The learner’stransit through the P, D, & R learning continuum engaged multiple learningstakeholders. Content objects were re-used, all or in part, and in some casesrepurposed in a second authoring platform to fit a different delivery venue.The secret to effective re-use demands advance knowledge of how small – howgranular – the learning objects must be. How can we acquire advance knowledgewithout accomplishing discovery that considers the iterative nature of learningdesign inherent across the P, D, & R learning continuum?

Developingstand-alone, linear training courses often follows a popular instructionaldesign methodology known as ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, andEvaluate). Because ADDIE has been around since the 1960s, some call it “oldschool” in its approach. Some are bold enough to say ADDIE has out-lived its usefulness.I do not buy into that line of thinking. ADDIE is not old school; however, ourapplication of the model can be limited by old-school thinking. ADDIE remainsintact as a logical guideline that still works – if used iteratively.

Since we need todevelop learning to align with multiple phases of a continuum and with theattributes of the learner’s environments, we must adapt our application ofADDIE. This adaptation requires that we address the design criteria three times– prepare, deploy, and reinforce. Asillustrated above, each continuum phase may have a different blend ofattributes across space, media, and systems.By ignoring the environmental implications that may be radically differentacross the continuum, our design, development, and delivery decisions are rifewith potential to generate redundant effort after deployment. That translatesinto addressing lingering performance gaps in post-training world. Thoseresults confirm that a one-size-fits-all training solution will not render asustainable capability.

Holistic discoveryis the key. Expanded discovery precedes application of the ADDIE model. (No, Idid NOT just set up a new acronym called DADDIE, but you have to admit thethought crossed your mind.)

The expansion ofdiscovery and the iterative approach do not translate into slogging through theentire ADDIE model three times; however, it does require consideration of thethree stages of the continuum within the first “D,” the design phase.Ultimately, development renders multiple objects, setting the stage for widerre-use of smaller objects.

 “Create once – use many times” becomes ourgoal, and for two reasons: to minimize redundant development efforts, and toembed a thread of continuity into the learning continuum. How many times havewe storyboarded ourselves into a coma, only to then turn around and re-buildjob aids as a separate effort? Following the tenets of P, D, & R, the jobaids have potential to serve as objects re-used throughout the entirecontinuum. Consider this re-use scenario:

Example of continuity through re-use:

• Insertion of a job aid (Performer Support Object– PSO) into the preparation phase e-Learning course. The intent is to introducea reference tool for use in future classroom simulations coming later in thedeployment phase.
• Scenario-based simulations during the classroomcomponent of the deployment phase re-use the same job aid (PSO).
• Once again, we embed the same job aid (PSO) inthe reinforce phase as just-in-time Performer Support for a learner confrontinga moment of need.

In this example,we introduce the learners to a tool (PSO), and they use the tool in acontrolled environment and validate proficiency in the presence of a subjectmatter expert. Then they utilize the same tool in the context of their jobs.While re-use reduced redundant effort, it also provided a thread of continuityto the learning experience.

Closing

Remember JonathonLevy’s predictions? Well, it is 2009, and we are right in the middle of what hepredicted. Learning opportunities are shrinking in size and going through ashift in venue to match up with our work context. More and more learningmoments are confronting our learners at the point of attack, outside of theclassroom. Our approach to training development is under pressure to shiftlearning assets to support learners under fire. The pressure we see comes inthe form of diminished training budgets, falling attendance in electivetraining classes, and high rates of e-Learning non-completion on the LMS.

The most damning evidenceof change is the perceived ineffectiveness of training solutions on renderingsustained human performance. Stellar Level One evaluation and learnersexceeding Level Two thresholds do not serve as accurate predictors ofperformance outside of the classroom. Should that matter? Definitely! Learnersrarely fail in the safe environment of the classroom, and even if they did, theorganization faces minimal risk.

Sustainableperformance occurs in a post-training environment, in the work context. If we failthe learner here, the stakes are higher, as are the costs to the organization.The time is now for training organizations to shift resources beyond theclassroom and beyond e-Learning, to the environment where the learner mustperform. This shift requires breaking some ingrained paradigms regardinginstructional design. I know I am walking on hallowed ground when I say this,but if we, as training organizations, do not contribute to a sustainedcapability we deserve to lose every penny of budget that gets whacked.

Mr. Levy saidsomething else that is critical. He mentioned a shift to performance support,also to improved change management, both as specialists. Zeroing in onperformance support as an authored asset is not his intent. Performance supportimplies we have accomplished discovery to identify where it is needed. It alsoimplies we have accomplished discovery related to the work context where theyconsume the asset. This represents a significant shift in thinking – asignificant change.

A continuouslearning environment is a holistic blend of the formal learning (training) thatwe do so well today, and a robust approach to informal learning (performersupport, collaboration, knowledge bases, and the list goes on and on).Integrating this “continuous learning thinking” into the training department isnot easy, hence Mr. Levy’s change management prediction. It has been myexperience that some instructional designers feel threatened by theseimplications. I have had platform trainers show concern that their jobs are atrisk. Truly, if we cannot deliver sustained capability, more than the trainingdepartment is at risk. These are not the economic times to have your corporatecontribution measured by the weight of your cost center on the budget.

The question youmust answer now is simply, “Is your training department ready to support acontinuous learning environment, or are you at a state of readiness to supporta continuous learning environment?” The change management plan you devise toreach critical mass and sustain your own team’s capability must build upon thegaps between ready and readiness.

References

Gottfredson, Conrad.(November 1, 2007) “A Beginning Discussion: What is Performance Support?”PERFORMER Support: Learning @the Moment of Need (weblog). Accessed June 26, 2009 at https://performancesupport.blogspot.com/2007/11/beginning-discussion.html

Levy, Jonathon. (February6, 2004) In “Predictions for 2004: E-learning Visionaries Look to the Future.”(Interviews by Lisa Neal) eLearnMagazine. Accessed June 29, 2009 at https://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=opinion&article=39-1 

Levy,Jonathon. (January 9, 2009) In “Predictions for 2007” (Interviews by Lisa Neal)eLearn Magazine. AccessedJune 29, 2009 at https://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?article=42-1§ion=articles