Posted by My name is Craig, and I’m working in a job that requires me to learn about Microsoft Word because I’ll use it often.
You know some things but not everything.
You might be interested in using AI, like Copilot, with Word or learning to use macros or VBA in Excel.
You can learn to create labels if the course includes that; great!
You should be able to jump directly to those sections without following a linear path.
Consider a scenario where executive assistants need to learn Outlook 365.
Some might be interested in creating email signatures, while others might focus on using AI tools for accuracy.
Tracking their interactions with the course content helps identify these preferences. For instance, if a learner is interested in creating email signatures, you can provide additional resources or exercises related to this topic, tailoring future training to their specific needs.
In essence, the ability to navigate freely within a course and the insights gained from tracking these interactions are far more valuable than simply knowing whether someone completed the course. It’s about the quality of the data, not just the quantity.
It’s about understanding and addressing each learner’s specific needs and interests.
I see a collective, so over the collective, let’s say it’s 30 people, and I see 27 of them going into whatever tool you have to streamline things.
There could be a table of contents within that tool, and now I’m drilling further down. OK, they’ve clicked into the tool, but where are they going in the tool?
Let’s say that’s the mini-module, and it’s 10 minutes long.
Even if it’s a video, some systems can benchmark and tell you, “OK, this person went here this many times,” or “This person went over here this many times.”
That gives you the insight you won’t get just by starting a course or doing a comprehension exam, because the comprehension exam covers everything, right?
It covers everything.
If I’m focused on returning to my label example, maybe there’s a question or not.
Then, I’m winging it based on my knowledge, which may or may not correlate. The idea that the assessment throughout the course will be relevant to someone may not be accurate.
Again, how good is it if I jump only to labels and you don’t include your assessment?
Does Retention deliver comprehension?
This gets back to retention. I can have a high retention rate on the day I take that quiz, but in two weeks, after I’ve got a bunch of stuff to do at work, my retention may go back to zero.
I often see this idea where vendors pitch their systems, saying, “You know, Company A and Company B, they all talk about how they’ve seen an increase in retention or comprehension.” And ergo, this is why the system is fantastic.
Ergo, this is why people take the content, go through it, and comprehend it.
Now, if it’s assigned learning, of course, they have to complete it.
So, wouldn’t you expect comprehension or what you think is retention? But if I can bounce around and don’t have to complete it, is that a good or bad thing?
That’s a good thing. It’s giving me relevant information, and I’m more interested in that aspect.
Let’s say you have a heat map.
Two of these five people have increased their response rate and leads from prospects to legitimate leads or demos over the last two quarters.
The sales director with L&D says, “Hey, look, by taking this content, they increased their leads; therefore, comprehension and retention occurred.”
How do you identify productivity? You can show a number in sales, but is it directly related? Let’s say that’s the data you’re presenting.
But what if you allow the person to bounce around?
You see, of these five people, three of them repeatedly hit something in follow-up and communication.
That should tell you this is the next piece of content you should create.
If you do it over six months, you want data showing points over time.
Initially, if I look at everybody, I can get an idea of what piece of content they go to first.
That tells me they have an interest there versus all the other modules.
Then you can create a table of contents and see where the items are going in that table of contents.
You want the granular data
I’m surprised how many people in L&D and training seem to ignore that granular data and look at the big picture.
The big picture doesn’t tell me much.
You’ve got to get into that granular data.
One of the most significant problems with today’s learning systems is that they have moved away from canned reports.
Canned reports or reports that have been pre-set up or defined by the vendor.
It may be the most popular reports or whatever they’ve offered back in the day.
This could get granular, and if you wanted something that the system doesn’t provide even today, you can contact the vendor and say, “Look, I need this specific report because they have that data. I need this specific report.”
It’s going to cost, so it isn’t free, but it may be relevant to you that the system doesn’t offer, but you want to stay with it.
If you’re looking at systems, ad hoc is OK; everybody does that. Do they offer canned reports, which would save you a lot of time?
If you have a table of contents and running time, and this is relevant to you, which it should be, and how many times, and you can’t do it in their ad hoc and they don’t have a canned report, you should be able to tell the vendor, “I want this report, and I want a custom report.”
A vendor should say yes if they have the data.
Now, if they say no, we do not offer custom reports (and realize they are fee-based to produce), then I’d seriously consider walking away—if you want those or that report.
Synthesis and Data- Where has it gone?
Content is all about synthesis, and we’ve moved away from that.
Systems have moved away from that, too.
If I can do that with my table of contents and add scenarios, why can’t I see the data around this scenario?
The scenario gives you a synthesis, applying what I’ve learned. I want to see that person come back often. You use it today and build on it tomorrow, focusing on skills and knowledge gaps you won’t get in a seminar. That’s why people stare into space until something interesting comes up.
It’s the same here. If you’re interested, you’ll learn and retain it. If you’re not, or you’re forced, you won’t retain it. You go in once, get knocked for not completing it, or enter several places. You need that granular data. Systems have mostly moved away from that.
Content and Objectives – It plays a role by having someone build up that synthesis
Let’s talk about creating a course. People use AI for content creation.
These tools put out massive descriptions, and then you have to go back into the prompt and say, “Reduce this to 25 words” or “Lose 10 words.” It should be right and to the point.
That’s what this description is.
You have objectives. Never say, “You will learn,” because that’s false. I may not learn it. It should be, “You should be able to…”
When you say, “You will,” I remember an example someone told me early on. Let’s say you’re playing golf and put in there, “You will learn how to get a hole-in-one.” If you don’t get a hole-in-one, then what?
I’ll learn it and get a hole-in-one. But if I never get a hole-in-one, is it my mistake or yours?
It’s not the Safety Dance, it’s Safety Training and Return to Build Synthesis
Think about safety training. “You will learn how to use a forklift.”
You’ll show me how, but how do you know I’ve learned it? Is it when it rolls over my feet? Safety training is highly relevant, and you need that granular data.
Did I start up the forklift and do this with it?
You may make it required, but you still want to know where they’re going, not just A-Z in five minutes. They’re not retaining that. You want them to go back more and more. If you’re saying, “Here’s how to use a forklift,” you want a table of contents. You want them to return even if you force them to complete it.
If they go in once, you assume they can drive a forklift. You’d know that from a general survey: “Do you know how to drive a forklift?” Yes or no. If no, and that’s the forklift you’re using, you can go back.
If they look at it for 30 seconds and move on, but they don’t know it, you can address that through their manager.
That’s relevant, not just completing the course and leaving.
It’s not your fault
Let’s say it’s not assigned, so people can go wherever they want.
Then you start noticing that people are just going in and leaving, and nobody’s coming back. That’s a huge issue.
The person overseeing L&D, training, HR, marketing, or sales often says, “Well, the problem isn’t me.
I can’t get these people back in, so it’s the system’s fault.” Or, “You bought third-party content, and nobody’s taking it, so it’s the system’s fault.”
Some systems include content they build and throw in regardless of quality.
They give it to you, and your learners take it, but don’t stick around or take all the courses.
Instead of looking at the content and thinking, “Maybe the content we got isn’t up to speed,” they complain to you and say it’s the system’s fault. Then, the company leaves and goes to another system.
How about this idea?
If I have third-party content that I’ve purchased and put into a system, typically, I get a bundle.
I would never get one course; vendors don’t like to do that. If I’ve got it in there, pick the ones you want, but look at them first. Don’t just say, “OK, I want this bundle,” and never pay attention.
Don’t rely on the vendor to say, “This is amazing third-party content.” That’s your job. Your job is to go in there and say, “Yeah, this is good,” or “Man, this is boring; I want something else.”
Even if it’s coming through a system and the system oversees it, the third-party content provider should say, “OK, let’s find good quality that works for you and your employees, customers, members, or whoever.” You want people to come back to take the content.
I’ve seen people say, “Oh, the learners hate my content and don’t go back into it.” Have you ever wondered why that is? Have you ever looked at it and said, “I need to go back in and look at this. Does it make sense? Can they understand what we’re trying to achieve?”
Do I have a table of contents? Does it provide enough engagement and interactivity beyond watching a video? Does it get my learners to think deeply, taking that information and applying it in real-life scenarios? AI can’t do deep thinking yet.
Is the content relevant to them? If it isn’t, and you can honestly say this doesn’t work, create new content.
Many systems come with templates, and third-party offering tools have templates, too. You can purchase content today, sometimes given as part of the system depending on the content provider, that enables you to edit the content and add your verbiage. The problem is, it’s just text.
You want relevant examples. You may do a little interactive thing. Some providers have it, and you can inquire about it without breaking the bank to get it.
I always say to people, if you want people to come back and take your content repeatedly, ask yourself, would you like to take this content? If your answer is no—being honest, mind you—then you should review and enhance it.
The Total Hours – How Relevant is that for your Synthesis and Data?
I do not like where it says, “This cumulative 25 hours that people or learners have gone through the system.”
Plenty of people focus on the relevance of completion and the number of hours, but you have to drill that down.
Synthesis with the content and data around the content, which goes granular, is the king.
Bottom Line
By reading this post, you should be able to
- Identify why synthesis is relevant to your learner.
- Explore how synthesis is practical using real-life scenario-based learning.
- Recognize that custom reports that present granular data relevant to your learning story are more important than total hours in a course.
- Understand that it isn’t the content’s fault for failure; it may be yours.
- Develop a strategy that ties synthesis to the content. This strategy can benefit your audience via canned reports or selective custom reports.
E-Learning 24/7