Making the Learner Relevant to the Learning

Whenever we begin designing a learning solution, we get into a detailed analysis of the content (Merrill and Component Display Theory come in handy here, among other tools), define the instructional objectives (Bloom takes care of this for the most part), decide the instructional strategy (take your pick on this - scenario-based learning, problem-based learning, story-based learning, blended learning, micro learning objects, threaded discussions, to name but a few), and get into the creation of the learning product. Not for a moment am I arguing that these steps are not necessary. But the area I reckon a little more rigor would help is that of understanding the learner.

While we do get at some level of target audience definition, either the definition is a little too general and broad (spread across the world, wide disparity in age, gender balance, diverse races, comfortable with computers, ambitious...) or we end up considering holistic personality definition tools (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument, Multiple Intelligences Theory...). May be we need to hit a little closer to home as well.

Can we define the learner's personality vis-a-vis the learning content? Can we attempt a learner definition vis-a-vis the learning objectives? Can we analyze the learner's motivational congruence with the program goals? Can we define the learner's raison d'etre to learn this content? Can we put all these together and define the instructional challenge for the program? And then use that as the trigger to define the instructional design of the program?

As I say this, my mind goes back to the world of consumer marketing and advertising. If you were to launch a new brand of soap, you would try to understand the consumer as a holistic individual, as a consumer of soap, and as a consumer of the brand proposition you want to put forth for your offering, wouldn't you? This composite understanding is what you would use to define the product and the corresponding marketing plan, isn't it? Inasmuch as advertising aims to educate the customer (albeit in a limited self-serving sense), training will do well to advertise itself to the learner. After all, we want the learner to be a willing participant in the learning process. S/he needs to be part of the team that defines the learning. And if that happens, the training program ends up being an advertisement for itself. And nothing can better than that to promote learning effectiveness.

Thoughts, comments?

(Geetha Krishnan heads Instructional Design at Tata Interactive Systems)

Comments

[writeguy]

What kind of tools do we have to build this 'learner personality'? I am thinking along the lines of the tools marketers typically use, such as focus groups, surveys, and so on. If we do, how many clients might be willing to grant us access for the inevitably long periods of time such methods will require? How do we convince them to grant us that access? If we use these tools, will we also be required to use incentives, a tactic that marketers typically use to get meaningful responses? I can see this approach working with clients whose business is education, potential incentives being free credits on online programs etc.

What might work in the corporate context? Fortunately, an advantage that we have with regard to corporate learners is that these learners are easily accessible, a luxury that marketers rarely have. Another advantage: Training managers might buy into this idea readily because they are always looking for ways to convince top management to enhance learning allocations. Perhaps a tool or technique that capitalizes on these two advantages might be useful.