Misconceptions

Growing up, I watched The Terminator, a story about a cyborg assassin sent back from 2029 to prevent the birth of the person who would eventually lead humanity’s resistance against Skynet. As a child, I viewed Skynet as pure science fiction. Computers did what humans programmed them to do, so the idea that artificial intelligence could surpass human intelligence and threaten humanity seemed far removed from reality.

Technology has changed considerably since then. Artificial intelligence is no longer confined to science fiction, and digital technology has become embedded in how we communicate, work, and learn. Although The Terminator presents an extreme vision of technological risk, it raises a question that is increasingly relevant to learning design: What role should technology play when human learning is the goal?

I once viewed technology primarily as a way to make training more interesting. My perspective has evolved. Technology can increase access, create opportunities for interaction and practice, and provide learners with resources when and where they need them. However, adding technology to a learning experience does not automatically make the learning more effective. A poorly designed presentation does not become good instruction simply because it is delivered through an interactive platform.

Perhaps Skynet is not the problem. The greater concern for instructional designers is assuming that technology itself can solve a learning problem.

A Need for Change

My experience with corporate training has shown me the difference between completing training and actually learning from it.

Each year, employees complete required training on topics such as policies, ethics, cybersecurity, and workplace expectations. Much of the information may be familiar from the previous year, but the completion requirement remains. Employees work through the material, satisfy the requirement, and return to their jobs. If they are later asked what they learned, however, the answer may reveal little retention or application.

The organization can document that training occurred, but completion alone does not demonstrate that meaningful learning took place.

Attention is part of this challenge. Galindo (2024) notes that adult attention may begin to wane after approximately 10 to 20 minutes, depending on factors such as interest, physical condition, and the learning environment. Importantly, this does not mean that adults are incapable of learning beyond a 20-minute period. Instead, it suggests that lengthy instruction should provide changes in activity, opportunities for participation, relevant examples, and meaningful interaction to help learners remain engaged.

This distinction is important in corporate environments. The solution to ineffective multi-hour training is not simply to divide a long presentation into several shorter presentations. Short, poorly designed instruction can still be ineffective.

The larger issue is what learners are being asked to do with the information.

The challenge becomes even greater during onboarding. New employees may need to learn organizational policies, procedures, technology systems, technical knowledge, and job expectations within a relatively short period. In complex roles, learners can spend weeks or months receiving information before they have meaningful opportunities to apply it. By the time they apply it, some of the information introduced early in training may be difficult to retrieve.

Technology offers possibilities for addressing this problem, but only when it is used intentionally.

Embracing Technology With Purpose

Interactive technology can expand the ways learners engage with people, content, and realistic problems. Richardson (2024) identifies technologies such as simulations, mobile learning, virtual and augmented reality, and collaborative platforms as tools that can support corporate learning. These possibilities are valuable because they can move learning beyond passive information delivery.

However, I no longer believe that instructional designers should use gamification, video, simulations, or interactive exercises simply to capture attention. Engagement is valuable, but engagement is not the same as learning. A learner can enjoy an activity without acquiring the knowledge or skills needed to perform a job.

The better question is: What does the learner need to do, and how can technology support that performance?

For example, a claims professional who must evaluate coverage may benefit more from a realistic scenario requiring a coverage decision than from watching another presentation explaining policy language. A new employee learning a complex software system may benefit from guided practice in a simulated environment where mistakes have no consequences. An experienced employee who occasionally needs to complete an unfamiliar task may not need another course at all; a searchable job aid or just-in-time resource may provide more useful support.

In each example, technology serves a different purpose because the performance need is different.

This represents an important shift in my thinking about instructional design. Earlier, I tended to associate innovation with using more technology. I now see innovation as selecting the appropriate solution for the learner and the problem. Sometimes that solution will involve sophisticated technology. At other times, a simple resource, conversation, job aid, or opportunity to practice may be more effective.

Technology can also make learning more flexible. Digital learning environments can allow employees to revisit information, practice skills, collaborate with others, and access support closer to the moment of need. For organizations, thoughtfully designed learning can potentially contribute to stronger performance, employee confidence, and job satisfaction. Those outcomes, rather than the novelty of the technology itself, should ultimately determine its value.

As I continue developing as an instructional designer, I want to become proficient with emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. At the same time, I want to resist the temptation to begin with the tool.

The goal is not to ask, How can I use this technology in training?

The better question is, What problem are learners experiencing, and what will help them succeed?

Skynet may have taught me to think about what happens when technology becomes too powerful. Instructional design is teaching me something different: technology is most powerful when it remains in service of people.

References

Galindo, I. (2024, June 3). How to keep learners engaged. Columbia Theological Seminary.

Richardson, K. E. (2024). Enhancing corporate training with technology. Purdue University College of Education.