Can you tell a learning programme is effective from its design?

In our view, the integration of learning into the work context is probably the most underestimated design criterion for learning. Hordes of learning professionals are still chasing the "transfer problem" that is considered inevitable: the question of how to ensure that what is learned (in the seminar room) is subsequently applied in work practice. However, the moment one sees working and learning as ultimately identical activities, the moment one lets learning take place as far as possible in the everyday social context, there is no longer any need for "transfer" - because learning takes place during work, with the colleagues it concerns.

Especially for learning topics where application in everyday work is fraught with hurdles - a new way of conducting conversations or leading meetings, for example - learning architectures that strongly situate learning in everyday work are more effective than those that outsource learning to other places and moments.

We distinguish four levels of integration of a learning architecture:

1. (Almost) all learning interventions take place outside or without involvement of the work context, e.g. in seminar rooms, or as e-learning. The future application of the learning content in everyday work plays a subordinate role in the implementation of the learning intervention, apart from perhaps a final examination.
2. The focus of the learning interventions is "classroom-based", but there are initial interventions for the time between the classrooms, e.g. tasks, reflections, instructions to try something out in everyday life.
3. The programme includes a variety of learning interventions that take place in everyday life, but is still built on and around classroom modules. The content thread still follows the logic of these modules.
4. The programme is detached from classroom modules, which now only make up the smaller part of the total learning time for participants. The learning is organised around the learners' practice, there are different learning interventions that take place in the learners' daily work.

A learning programme with a high degree of integration into the daily work routine looks completely different from a traditional seminar and thus takes some getting used to for many participants. Classical integrated formats are oriented, for example, towards "coaching on the job": the learner is accompanied internally or externally in a moment that is relevant to him or her, and during or only after the moment there is feedback and concrete tips for other actions. Variations of experimentation are also usually well integrated into the daily work routine; learners try out new strategies for action, accompanied in different ways, at relevant moments.

All forms of learning that involve the learners' social environment indicate a high level of integration: When colleagues take on support roles, interlocutors learn something of the learner's learning goal, managers are consciously invited to create a space for the learner.

The more learners recognise their individual learning questions and situations, the easier it is to apply what they have learned. We once encountered this basic question of individualisation in the redesign of a training for nurses.

Traditional training is oriented towards classical school subjects - these are usually the different expertise of the teachers, e.g. pharmacy, practice, maths, communication. These subjects are then taught as different "subjects". This is easy for the teachers because they can tell the same thing repeatedly with relatively little effort. The effort to apply what they have learned concretely to their own work is up to the learner.

When we redesigned the training, we based it on key situations ("critical incidents" - link). A training unit then deals, for example, with giving an injection - a concrete action that is immediately recognisable for the learners from their own everyday life. The teachers then have to bring together their different expertise as it interacts in the concrete moment: The conversation with the patient about the injection, the pharmaceutical check, if necessary, the calculation of the right amount, the practical setting of the injection.

We distinguished four levels of individualisation of a learning programme:

1. Almost exclusively input-based learning, the general subjects and theories are the starting point and determine the rhythm of the programme. Logic of subjects, different teachers all "teaching" their respective expertise.
2. First explicit translations of the general themes to the individual working situation of the participants. There is room to bring in individual cases and to apply the theory to these cases together with the teachers.
3. General theories / topics are equal to the individual cases of the participants. The programme is based on key situations, for example, which have a strong recognition effect.
4. The structure and rhythm of the programme is based on key situations or the individual questions or the individual learning process of the participants. Theories and models are adapted to the individual cases/key situations in their selection and in the way they are introduced.

Joseph Kessels, one of our founders, coined the phrase: "You can't be smart against your will". What sounds funny at first has radical consequences: Forced learning only works to a very limited extent. And yet there are still learning programmes to which participants are sent, learning content is ordered. Prescribing learning content can sometimes make sense - for example, if I want to learn a new profession but have no idea what it takes. But this predefinition then takes place within the framework of voluntariness, because I have decided to learn the new profession.

What works is when learners take responsibility for their own learning. And it is precisely this responsibility that a programme design can support - or exclude from the outset. Learners who feel responsible for their learning are more motivated to learn, are more likely to ensure that learning is tailored to their needs, and are much more likely to apply what they have learned. At the same time, taking responsibility in this way may be extremely unusual for learners in a programme - and they may still need to learn how to do it.

We distinguish four levels of personal responsibility in a learning programme:

1. The learning programme and its contents are fixed from the outset. Participants are sent and go through the pre-determined programme.
2. Learners come voluntarily. At the same time, the programme is largely fixed, but there are a few points where you can influence it or decide on certain elements yourself.
3. The learners make a conscious decision for the learning programme. There is a fixed structure with content, but within the structure there are choices for the learners as to which learning interventions they want to use.
4. Learners make a conscious choice to use the programme to address their own learning question. The structure offered is primarily aimed at guiding learners in dealing with their learning question (process orientation), content is largely integrated into the learning process as required and is only generally fixed in advance.

What image do we actually have of "learning"? - One possible image is the learning process as a sequence of relevant "aha moments". Each of these moments holds an insight, and this increasing insight is then learning. For some cases this may be true. But on the one hand, this picture is limiting; learning here is primarily cognitive-content-related. On the other hand, the picture implicitly assumes that insight is the ultimate goal of learning. Especially in the work context, however, insight is often not enough - what is relevant is the action that one hopes will follow the insight gained. Unfortunately, psychology has found that insight does not necessarily, and even shockingly often, does not lead to different action.

For us, a more appropriate image of "learning" is that of a developmental process in which experiences, insights, experiments, practice, reflection all play a role, build on each other, reinforce each other in ways that cannot always be planned.

The design of learning programmes often implicitly reflects one or the other of these two images. Our experience shows that programmes designed as a coherent process have a higher chance of changing actions and thus learning effectiveness than programmes consisting of individual "points".

We distinguish four levels of "flow" in a learning programme:

1. The learning programme consists of independent, individual learning interventions, each of which typically focuses on one content topic. The main focus of the interventions is cognitive insight. The order of the learning interventions does not matter in principle.
2. The learning programme still consists of individual learning points, but there are small efforts to build bridges between the points. The sequence of learning interventions still does not follow an explicit logic, but elements of one point are repeated in a following point, for example.  The focus is still strongly cognitive.
3. The learning programme consists of strongly salient learning points, but there is a logic in the sequence (what comes first, what after) and connection between the individual learning points. This structure makes the focus more holistic, also practising, experiencing, reflecting are part of the learning programme.
4. The learning programme is a learning process. Visible above all is this line, the individual learning interventions are increasingly difficult to delineate and depend on each other. The focus and methodology are holistic, each learning intervention builds on the previous one.

At first glance, beauty does not come naturally as a criterion for effective learning programmes. In our experience, however, beauty is one of the most misunderstood variables in learning architectures. The essence of beauty in learning programmes is that they radiate attractiveness, consistency and harmony in all their manifestations. Beauty is evidence of attention paid by learning programme providers to participants and thus invites commitment. Beauty entices learners to invest in the programme.

We distinguish four levels of "beauty" in a learning programme:

1. Here is no discernible effort at aesthetics, the programme's expressions seem random, have little recognition value, nothing indicates extra effort on the part of the providers beyond what is absolutely necessary.
2. Communication with learners shows traces of aesthetics, e.g. there is a logo, emails are no longer purely functional, thought has been given to texts, locations are deliberately chosen.
3. The programme looks attractive. Different elements of the programme are aesthetically coordinated, communication with learners is deliberately designed. Locations are inviting. Everything makes people want to learn.
4. Aesthetics permeate all aspects, there are wow moments, surprises. You can tell that beauty is a conscious design criterion.

"Form follows function" also applies to the design of learning programmes. Consistency" is about this aspect. Internal consistency means how the different elements of the programme are "of one piece", fit together, follow the same philosophy. Internal consistency makes it easier for learners to understand the function of different forms of learning through recognition.

External consistency means the extent to which the methods and forms used fit the (learning) objective of the programme. If one of the programme objectives in a leadership development programme is e.g. taking responsibility, then forms that aim at a strong regulation of the learning process would be externally inconsistent (because this regulation is the opposite of taking responsibility). A 2-hour lecture on "interactive didactics" is thus also externally inconsistent. External consistency increases the credibility of the intended goals.

We distinguish between levels of consistency in learning programmes:

1. There are gross internal and / or external inconsistencies, little thought seems to have been given to the formal language of the programme.
2. The majority of the programme is inconsistent, where goals and methods match, it seems to be coincidence rather than intention.
3. The majority of the programme is consistent, methods seem to be deliberately chosen and fit together.
4. The programme is almost entirely consistent, there are explicit design principles that guide the different methods.