Greater length of time spent learning + expert lead delivery = something valuable was learned.
Or some variation of that is the myth that most of us in L&D will never escape from.
I was looking at an infographic we created internally in sharing the success of our front line manager development programme. One of the things it clearly (and evidently proudly) states is that people received 65 hours worth of learning on the programme.
65 hours! That’s nearly two full working weeks of learning content.
27 hours of that learning content was off the shelf e-learning. Man. That’s just seriously painful. And it was mandatory too as part of the course! Really painful.
We’re in round two of this programme and we’ve shifted things dramatically on the e-learning front. We’ve bought a license to an authoring tool (Articulate Storyline) and we’re creating our own content for the programme outside of the statutory e-courses. We’re limiting ourselves to 20 minutes per e-course too. If we can’t deliver the content in that time, it’s back to the storyboard.
On our senior management development programme I’ve also taken that above equation and thrown it out the window. We’re providing a range of lengths for different learning content. So people have a mix of 2 hour masterclasses, 3 hour workshops or full day sessions. Again, for each of those lengths, it forces us to look at the content delivery and examine what needs to be included and why.
And of course, there’s the whole online element of learning with always on content. As I’ve admitted previously, this time round we’ve not touched that. But when you consider the complete range of learning content available either free or paid for, that learning equation just doesnt and can’t stack up.
Ultimately what this means is we’re looking more closely at the quality of learning. That’s always the single hardest argument to convince senior people in the business of and the single biggest win.