How do I know if Upskilling will work?

This week's post touches on how an understanding of human learning and retention can maximize the effectivity of an upskilling program. Field research provides insight into the remarkable differences between different learning environments and the amount of information that is actually retained (Baron, P., & Baron, A. C., 2015). It may not be enough to invest in team member training without ensuring that the time and money spent be maximized for a return on the investment. Comprehensive design of the learning environment / program is the fact based path to turning the time spent into a motivational experience that pays dividends.

The question to be answered is - how do I know if the Upskilling Program will work? There are a number of upskilling methods available in today's environment. The decision of which one is most appropriate is directly related to the learner. It is common for product suppliers and manufacturers to provide learning sessions and technical instruction concerning their products. For the learner that is interested in gaining product information - the features and benefits of a certain product – these are likely sufficient. For the learner who wishes to understand, for example, the concepts and elements of systems design or the nuances of project management or negotiation, it is better to engage in a formally designed interactive learning environment (Baron, P., 2018). In other words, product manufacturers are likely to explain the piece of the pie that is most closely associated with their product whereas more comprehensively designed learning environments do more. They will not only serve up the whole pie but leave the learner capable of baking their own.

To maximize the learning experience a few key concepts must be understood and incorporated into the upskilling design. First, lets have a look at the link between format and retention. The “Cone of Learning” or as some call it the “Learning Pyramid” is a a widely acknowledged model of how much information is retained after different types of learning activities are completed. While the percentages are disputable it is commonly accepted that some form of presenting the information learned or teaching others is superior to listening to a lecture or reading about the topic.

Illustration 1: As adapted from Laseinde, O.T. & Adejuyigbe, S.B. & Mpofu, Khumbulani & Campbell, Harold. (2015)

Beyond this understanding, there has been a great deal of research done over the last fifty or so years into how humans learn (Pask, G., & Scott, B. C. E., 1972; MacLean, P., & Scott, B., 2007). There is no question that humans need to learn and that it is nearly impossible to keep them from learning. The question is what is being learned and why? It is of paramount importance to use learning environment design methods that produce results (Scott, B., & Cong, C., 2007). A well researched and tested method for learning design includes the following steps:

1. Identify the need or skills “gap”

2. Specify the aims and learning outcomes

3. Develop the course structure

4. Specify the content

5. Specify the activities and assessments

6. Clarify the support systems available to the learner

7. Explain the assessment procedure

8. Develop the course

9. Implement / Deliver the learning designed

10. Evaluate

Illustration 2: As adapted from MacLean, P., & Scott, B. (2010)

A learning environment that is properly designed and executed results in a comprehensive understanding of the skills desired. Time must be spent to develop learning environments that are specific in accomplishing the objectives that are stipulated.

From experience we know that the key metric for accomplishment in sales is, well, selling. The key metric in a learning system for the upskilling facilitator is learning. In summary then, the key to judging whether or not upskilling will work is to evaluate the structure of the course design and the motivation of the upskilling facilitator. Organization specific upskilling tailored to the learner and evaluated by learning results is the key to upskilling value and success.

References

1. Baron, P., & Baron, A. C. (2015). A quantitative examination of two different teaching paradigms in a Germiston based pre-school: A pilot study. Kybernetes, 44(8–9), 1207–1218. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-11-2014-0259

2. Scott, B., & Cong, C. (2007). Designing interactive learning environments: An approach from first principles. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24(3), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650740710762211

3. Scott, B., & Cong, C. (2010). Evaluating course design principles for multimedia learning materials. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(5), 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650741011087720

4. Laseinde, O.T. & Adejuyigbe, S.B. & Mpofu, Khumbulani & Campbell, Harold. (2015). Educating tomorrows engineers: Reinforcing engineering concepts through Virtual Reality (VR) teaching aid. 1485-1489. 10.1109/IEEM.2015.7385894.

5. MacLean, P., & Scott, B. (2010). An e-Learning Course on e-Learning for Staff in Higher Education. The University of the Fraser Valley Research Review, 3(2), 39–53.

6. Baron, P. (2018). Heterarchical reflexive conversational teaching and learning as a vehicle for ethical engineering curriculum design. Constructivist Foundations, 13(3), 309–319.

7. Pask, G., & Scott, B. C. E. (1972). Learning strategies and individual competence. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 4(3), 217–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(72)80004-X

8. MacLean, P., & Scott, B. (2007). Learning design: Requirements, practice and prospects. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24(3), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650740710762220

This is a very small representation of the available literature on learning and learning design. For a more complete list please contact the author.