Designing Virtual Learning Experiences

When developing her first few virtual training sessions, Emma spent a lot of planning time writing precise learning objectives, organizing content, creating supporting graphics, and coming up with learning activities. But when each session ended, she realized that something was missing. Participants were passive, asked few questions, and didn’t really seem to engage. From a learner’s perspective, the training experiences were mediocre at best and didn’t seem to have much impact after they ended. What could Emma do differently with virtual training design to improve the learning experience?

When you design a virtual training session, how do you envision participants responding? Are they motivated right from the start? Are they interacting with others? Are they practicing challenging tasks related to their work? My colleagues and I have a list of descriptors we’d like learners to say and feel about their online experience. These include terms like practical, relevant, engaging, meaningful, interactive, and in depth. When learners log out of your online sessions, what do you want them to feel, think, and say about it? In short, what kind of learning experience do you want them to have?

Chapter 1 introduced the Virtual Trainer Capability Model and the eight core capabilities for professionally developing virtual trainers, learning designers, and instructors of online professional development and training programs. In this chapter, we’ll focus on the first capability, experience design. As virtual trainers, our goal is to approach the craft of designing instruction as a learning experience. Our design task is somewhat analogous to what an architect does. Skilled architects start with a vision of what to build, for whom, and the purposes it will serve. Then this translates into a design blueprint for building and delivering a first-rate experience. We, too, need to invest time and effort to develop impactful learning designs that will help us deliver exceptional virtual learning experiences.

Your job title may be instructional designer, e-learning developer, or learning and development specialist because you design live online learning programs. Or perhaps you are a virtual facilitator who also designs the online training programs you facilitate. Regardless of your formal title, if you assist with virtual learning design in any way, this chapter will challenge you to think differently, more holistically, and more intentionally about learning design. You will become familiar with learning experience design (LXD) principles and practices to apply to live online learning. You’ll also gain insight into how skilled learning experience designers are learner-centered and how they integrate cognitive, emotional, social, and behavioral dimensions of learning into impactful training experiences. And you’ll learn how to apply design thinking strategies that unleash creative thinking, as well as ways to enhance the learner’s journey throughout a virtual training program. All this is aimed at making the virtual learning experience more engaging, meaningful, and impactful.

Learning Experience Design (LXD) for Virtual Training

In your role within learning and development, and as a user of various products and services, you have likely heard the terms user experience, customer experience, patient experience, employee experience, and more recently learner experience. These concepts reflect a rising importance placed on an end user’s overall experience with a product or service. This fundamental shift that centers on the end user when making design decisions is often the difference in better product quality, increased sales, greater customer loyalty, better patient choice, and, for us, improved learning outcomes and learner satisfaction.

What Is Learning Experience Design?

For me and others, the concept of learning experience design (LXD) is more than just a surface rebranding of conventional instructional design practices. Most traditional instructional design models, which originated during World War II, are not well matched to today’s digital learning environments. One helpful way to understand LXD is to think of it as an evolution of conventional instructional design—like instructional design 2.0. LXD builds on many of the core principles of traditional instructional design (ID 1.0) but provides a broader and more modern-day set of tools, strategies, and terms to approach learning design. Today’s online learning environments are more technology enabled, more learner-driven, and more learner-centered. LXD is about rejuvenating and enriching conventional instructional design practices to achieve learning and performance goals and meet the needs of modern learners in today’s digital work environment.

Experience is a key word here. Significant learning outcomes are a by-product of rich experiences. Einstein has been quoted as saying “Learning is an experience. Everything else is just information” (Immersive Learning News 2020). Authors Sharon Boller and Laura Fletcher (2020) in their book, Design Thinking for Training and Development, summarize the role of today’s instructional designers as follows: “We don’t create learning. Instead, people have an experience as they learn.” Throughout this book, I will encourage you to adopt an LXD mindset for virtual training and leverage the capabilities of evolving technology tools and new learning spaces.

Influences on LXD

LXD has evolved by adopting practices and principles from several other disciplines. Building on its instructional design foundation, it has been heavily influenced by at least three other professional disciplines that I integrate into our learning design approach. These include user experience design, design thinking, and evidence-based practice. First, LXD borrows heavily from the field of user experience design (UXD). The term UXD was first coined by cognitive psychologist Donald Norman in the 1990s when working at Apple. Norman and others recognized that computer hardware and software needed to be more human-friendly and user-centered.

UXD has evolved into a broad field of professional practice. Commonly used in developing websites, software applications, and interfaces for computers and other technology devices, UXD applies human-centered design principles to improve people’s interactions with technology. UXD professionals use empirical methods such as user observation, interviews, evidence-based research, and user testing and feedback in various branches of psychology to gain insight into the needs and behaviors of users. This then helps to create better interactive experiences. UX is to the user what LX is to the learner. Learning experience design incorporates many of the practices and strategies of UXD and applies them to improve the online learner experience.

Another influence that has become integral to both LXD and UXD is design thinking. Design thinking is a flexible human-centered, problem-solving approach used in a variety of disciplines. According to the Interaction Design Foundation (2021), “The design thinking process is iterative, flexible, and focused on collaboration between designers and users, with an emphasis on bringing ideas to life based on how real users think, feel and behave.” Made popular in the US in the early 1990s by the global design firm IDEO, design thinking has roots going back to the 1970s and Scandinavian participatory design approaches. The main emphasis is on designing human-centered and experienced-centered products and services. It is as much a mindset as it is a process and set of practices.

Design thinking invites multiple stakeholders, including users and learners, into the design process. It includes stages of empathy for learners by defining design challenges and performance gaps from multiple perspectives, followed by ideating and brainstorming. Rapidly testing out ideas coupled with learner feedback and iteration of potential solutions are a few of its main strategies. The design thinking process is iterative, collaborative, and almost always results in creative and impactful new ideas and solutions. Michael Allen’s Successive Approximation Method (SAM) heavily integrates design thinking practices (Allen 2012). Boller and Fletcher’s 2020 book, Design Thinking for Training and Development, provides a framework and principles for adapting design thinking for training design projects. A full implementation of design thinking is most effective for generating solutions to high-stakes instructional challenges. However, to create virtual training experiences, we can adapt and integrate many design thinking practices into our learning design process, which we cover later in this chapter.

A third major influence for LXD can be broadly framed as evidence-based practice. This concept was first used in the healthcare industry but has spread to other professional disciplines including education and training. Compared to conventional instructional design, LXD places a greater emphasis on making learning design decisions based on empirical evidence and learning science research. LXD draws upon cognitive neuroscience, psychology, social science, computer-based learning, media and communications, and other human-centered disciplines. Leaders in this area include Ruth Clark, Clark Quinn, Will Thalheimer, Julie Dirksen, and others who study and explain this research for learning design professionals. Evidence-based practice in LXD also entails being more empirically grounded. It involves testing out new design ideas; closely observing learners; collecting data about learner behaviors, feelings, and reactions; and evaluation as integral elements throughout the learning design process.

There are other streams of influence that have shaped the growth of LXD. Worth mentioning are immersive learning strategies emerging from new technologies. These range from interactive case scenarios, digital games, and simulations to virtual and augmented realities. They emphasize contextualizing learning; individuals are given challenges, make decisions, and get feedback all aimed at making learning more active, relevant, and engaging. Cognitive psychologist Clark Quinn’s learning experience framework draws on game design principles supported by cognitive science as a foundation for increasing meaningfulness and learner engagement (Quinn 2021). Gamification expert Karl Kapp also presents compelling evidence to inspire instructional designers to think more like game designers (Kapp, Blair, and Mesch 2014). It’s difficult not to use the words “experience” and “engaging” when describing any of the types of learning designs mentioned earlier.

LXD is a holistic, learner-centered approach that incorporates principles and practices from multiple disciplines to rejuvenate traditional instructional design for modern learning environments. As a learning experience designer, we lead with the experience we want learners to have, not the content we want them to consume. So, how might all this apply to virtual training and live online learning?

Applying LXD to Virtual Training

To apply LXD in a virtual context, think of it as the sum of a learner’s interactions with content, people, and technology. It can begin with the very first email a learner receives after registering for a virtual training event, all the way to the completion of any post-session work, follow-up action plans, and evaluation. According to The Learning Guild’s director of research, Jane Bozarth (2020), “LXD recognizes that learning often happens in a context larger than a single course and may be comprised of many different elements.”

Designing learning experiences in live online training is not about presenting content with a few learning activities or delivering mini lectures interspersed with a few polls. LXD is about experience. Admittedly, it’s difficult to break free from the entrenched content-centric tendencies reflected in the design of many training programs. LXD’s more holistic orientation encompasses all the touchpoints in the learning process from A to Z. Previously, the learning and development community did not have a well-articulated language and framework to implement LXD. To help you apply this to your virtual training designs, we’ll reference the 4 Dimensions of Learning model described in the next section. We’ll be threading the elements of this framework throughout the book.

4 Dimensions of Learning: An LXD Model

In their book Designing the Online Learning Experience, Simone Conceição and Les Howles (2021) from the University of Wisconsin identify four constituent elements underlying the design of engaging and impactful learning experiences (Figure 2-1). Their framework is based on research on learner engagement in formal environments including adult online education and training programs. Because of the formal structure of most virtual training, I’ve found designing learning around these four dimensions to be particularly useful. The four dimensions are cognitive, emotional, social, and behavioral (Conceição and Howles 2021). The key is to tightly integrate these dimensions into the design of learning activities, lessons, and other kinds of events that take place in a virtual instructor-led training (vILT) environment. Let’s take a look at each dimension and how it can be integrated into the design.

Figure 2-1. Four Dimensions of Learning

Cognitive Dimension

The cognitive dimension of learning pertains to the mental processes supporting how individuals acquire, assimilate, store, and recall knowledge for application. It is the bedrock of all formal learning where verbal and visual language are used to convey and shape ideas. One doesn’t need to look much further than Benjamin Bloom’s (1956) longstanding and still widely used levels of cognitive learning to get an idea of the scope of this domain. The cognitive dimension of learning has received the most attention in education and training as well as in learning science research. Many professional training programs focus on learners acquiring and understanding facts, concepts, principles, procedures, and processes. Acquiring such knowledge enables individuals to form mental models that support job-related problem solving, decision making, and performance.

Learning science research provides numerous principles for enhancing cognitive learning and how to chunk and present information. You can apply these principles through multimedia message design based on cognitive load theory, which I reference throughout this book (Mayer 2014), and through practice strategies such as spaced repetition, retrieval practice, and feedback. Much of what we do in virtual training on the cognitive level focuses on learning concepts and information. The ultimate goal of learning is for newly acquired knowledge to be transferred and applied to the work context.

In many virtual training sessions, instructors tend to focus heavily on cognitive learning through presentation segments supplemented with PowerPoint visual media. To facilitate cognitive learning, one virtual training strategy includes pausing to ask questions, which is covered in much greater depth in chapter 4. This also provides opportunities for individuals to connect new knowledge to prior knowledge so it can be solidified in long-term memory. Another strategy for augmenting cognitive learning in virtual training is to design mentally challenging learning activities where participants are asked to recall, apply what they just learned, and solve hypothetical problems.

One of the most powerful ways to solidify newly acquired knowledge is to follow up with learning activities in short periods where individuals reflect on an activity, their decision-making process, and the results obtained. This is also explored in greater depth in chapter 4. When ending virtual training sessions, facilitators can prompt individuals to identify one or two ways they can apply their new knowledge outside training.

These strategies and a host of others can be designed to support the cognitive dimension of learning in virtual training contexts. From a cognitive learning perspective, all the various learning activities require learners to draw upon their mental resources to assimilate the new information. The idea is to prevent rote and surface-level learning and promote deeper learning so that learners’ new knowledge is stored in long-term memory for recall beyond class. In my virtual training sessions, when I want learners to understand and deeply process certain concepts and principles, I make sure to include multimedia and illustrations to clarify and then lead discussions to digest it further. I also share stories from my own experience and sometimes use mnemonics to help them remember the steps we practice.

The cognitive dimension of learning runs deep and interconnects with the other three dimensions. For example, it’s hard to imagine learning how to perform complex tasks (behavioral dimension) and engaging with others in collaborative problem solving (social dimension) without cognitive processes coming into play. Focusing on the cognitive dimension is only part of achieving engaging, meaningful, and impactful learning experiences. In recent years, cognitive neuroscience has clarified that the cognitive dimension is inextricably linked with affect or emotions, which is where we focus next.

Emotional Dimension

As humans, we are clearly more than just cognitive beings. Learning science research is now making it abundantly clear that emotions and cognition are deeply intertwined. As educational neuroscientist Janet Zadina (2014) states, “emotions and learning cannot be separate.” The emotional dimension permeates a person’s entire learning experience, and skilled facilitators intentionally weave emotional elements into their teaching from start to finish.

As trainers, what we are mainly focusing on here is learner motivation, which is deeply rooted in individual emotional states. Learner motivation drives invested mental effort, which supports cognitive learning (Paas et al. 2005). Learners need to be willing to start a learning experience and sustain interest and effort throughout. If not, learning outcomes will, at best, be mediocre. Several simple strategies I like to use to increase learner motivation throughout a live virtual session include baiting curiosity and introducing challenges, problems, and even puzzling situations to solve. I especially like to assign these as breakout activities for small groups.

Beginning training by stating a dry list of objectives can sometimes do extraordinarily little to stimulate motivation, especially in a virtual setting when participants might be looking for any excuse to check text messages or email. Instead, you can reframe those designer-centered objectives into more interesting learner-centered statements highlighting how participants will benefit from the live online session. Keep your original objectives to drive your design but modify them into more motivating statements when you share them with learners. I sometimes rephrase my objectives into questions to which participants would likely want the answers. Ideally, this would stimulate their curiosity and motivation, so they think, “Yeah, I want to learn that” or “I need to know how to do that.”

It is also important to recognize that both positive and negative emotions contribute to performance outcomes and a learner’s overall experience. We all know that enjoyable learning activities can make learners more engaged and motivated. However, it’s easy to forget that challenging learning activities with episodes of confusion and struggle—if managed well by a facilitator—can potentially yield some of the deepest and most memorable learning outcomes (D’Mello et al. 2014). Think back to when you have heard a learner who was initially struggling then exclaim “Aha! I got it!” You can almost hear the pride in their voice, and you feel the positivity of their emotions because of this accomplishment. This then can fuel more motivation.

In my designs for virtual training, I try to incorporate emotional and motivational elements by reminding learners they can do it and that I believe in them. I prepare them by sharing right before an assignment that a task may be challenging, and our producer and I will be right there to support them. For example, when I train novice trainers virtually on how to write learning objectives, I always warn them that it’s hard thinking work but they can do it. After I demonstrate how to do it, writing examples (both legitimate and funny) on a digital whiteboard, I have learners practice in small breakout groups and then write some independently. Sometimes they tell me later it was “hard thinking work” but they got it with plenty of practice and feedback! I also try to explain the rationale for a learning activity before we do it to help trigger motivation.

Virtual trainers also have additional emotional concerns for their learners. Because virtual environments are technology mediated, learners may be confronted with user interfaces and tools that are not user-friendly. Usability issues can be frustrating for learners. The virtual facilitator must anticipate these types of negative technology interactions, which can sour any learning experience. For example, in my sessions if learners are new to a platform, experience limited bandwidth, or have connection issues, I do my best to reframe whatever is happening with a “cup half-full” mindset instead of a “half-empty” one. Conducting tech checks beforehand and providing ways for them to acclimate to the environment can help alleviate these too. (We discuss preventive measures and how to troubleshoot to avoid souring learning experiences in greater depth in chapter 9.) When I teach virtual classes for universities, I request learners log into the course management system or LMS a week before to acclimate so they can feel more comfortable in the class environment. All this helps to support a positive emotional learning experience.

As part of the learning design process, it is the trainer’s responsibility to have a mapped-out plan that incorporates various kinds of motivational strategies for the flow of instructional events. Learners’ emotional and motivational states are often difficult to discern in virtual environments. But as we move into the next two dimensions of learning, we can often get a better read of the learning experience in terms of how learners socially interact and what they are doing.

Social Dimension

A virtual training learning experience should be interspersed with social interactions. The social dimension involves two main types of interactions: learner-to-instructor and learner-to-learner (Moore 2013). Live virtual sessions where participants can hear and see each other fosters a sense of heightened social presence. The virtual instructor capitalizes on this by conveying enthusiasm for the topic through voice and physical gestures, by providing immediate constructive feedback, and by creating a personable, warm, caring climate of psychological safety, which we’ll explore more in chapter 3.

These live interactions and a sense of social presence influence the cognitive and emotional dimensions of learning. A person’s level of motivation and mental effort can be enhanced due to the presence of others who are also involved in the same task. A good analogy is the energy and effort boost that often occur when exercising alongside others at a fitness club. On the learner and student side, “Multiple studies published in the Harvard Business Review, Science, Nature, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences have found that students learn best in active, social learning environments” (Bersin 2020). According to 2,000 learners surveyed in LinkedIn’s 2020 Workplace Learning Report, approximately half of millennials and boomers surveyed, and more than half of Gen X and Gen Z learners who participated, feel more motivated to learn in social environments. “Learners across all generations also want to learn with their colleagues to exchange ideas, share insights, and ask questions” (Van Nuys 2020).

So, live online learning is and should be a social experience. But the challenge with designing these learning experiences is creating engaging learning activities that promote participation and dialogue. The facilitator’s task in designing such activities is to encourage individuals to share their experience and knowledge, ask questions without feeling embarrassed, and welcome dialogue. At the same time, conversations need to stay on target and focused on learning goals. These productive interactions occur by making space for learners to collaborate and learn from one another, such as placing them in breakouts to solve problems and complete tasks. In my training sessions on how to facilitate virtually, I give learners a hypothetical scenario where they experience a major technology glitch, and they must discuss as a team how they would address it productively.

Part of being learner-centered in a virtual space also involves sensitivity to learner differences. For example, introverted individuals may not contribute as much within a group learning situation and because of this should not feel forced to participate. I let my learners know that if they prefer to work independently on some assignments to let me know privately through chat, and I am happy to place them in an independent breakout room or ask that they remain muted in the main room. Some introverts find they learn the material better this way.

Another aspect of social learning involves learners observing experts performing a complex procedure or task and being able to engage with these experts. For example, if managers need to learn how to approve or decline staff requests to take courses in the LMS, you may bring in an LMS administrator to model it for them and field their questions so they can interact directly with the expert.

A skilled virtual trainer as a learning designer needs to take all these social learning factors into consideration. The trick is discerning when, what kind, and how much social interaction will add the most value to the learner experience. And, of course, the interaction always needs to support the learning goals. Just as emotional and motivational elements must be strategically and intentionally interspersed throughout a virtual training session, so must social interactions be carefully planned, designed, and implemented by virtual facilitators.

It’s also important not to force social interactions into the virtual training session without a clear instructional rationale. Social interaction can be a time killer if not managed well. There are many contextual factors at play here, such as the type of content, learning objectives, timeframe, number of learners, platform constraints, and learner characteristics. For example, topics that have a lot of ambiguity might require more discussion as opposed to highly defined tasks and technical content. The trick is getting the right balance depending on the training context.

It’s quite easy to see the crossover value of social interactions with the cognitive and emotional dimensions. In sum, the social dimension can play a significant supportive role. As some people might argue, all learning is social.

Next let’s explore the final learning dimension for virtual training, behavioral.

Behavioral Dimension

As many L&D professionals likely agree, much of our training includes too much telling and not enough doing. This tendency is often accentuated in the live online training context where everyone is connected remotely. It’s important to reiterate, however, that although LXD emphasizes being learner-centered, it is equally centered on improving performance and acquiring job-related knowledge. We need to also view the behavioral dimension of learning as encompassing more than performing psychomotor operations. Just as behavioral and performance objectives are not all about physical skills, we use the concept of behavior here in a broad sense where there is considerable crossover with the other three dimensions. This is because learner behavior is shaped by how one thinks (cognitive), how one feels (emotional), and by what one hears and sees from others (social).

The behavioral dimension of learning involves action, practice, application, and performance. It’s often associated with active learning, a key ingredient for creating engaging and impactful learning experiences. In many of my virtual training sessions, I try to include a variety of what e-learning expert William Horton (2012) refers to as “do type learning activities.” Learners can work alone or in small groups for these activities. In this way, they can try out and practice applying what they’re learning on the cognitive level. They do this through decision-making scenarios, practice exercises with feedback, role plays, mini games, and other kinds of active learning exercises linked to performance goals. For example, in breakouts you might include skill practices with role plays where learners practice giving constructive feedback, so they are better equipped to do so on the job. A good design strategy recommended by Clark Quinn (2021) to prioritize the behavioral dimension of learning is to use a backward design approach. The design sequence begins first by establishing clear performance objectives. The next step is to design practice-oriented learning activities based on the objectives. Focus on supporting content comes later. These “do type” practice activities can also be used as informal assessments to evaluate how learners are translating new knowledge into action. Too often the tendency with virtual training is to convey content during a virtual learning session. When this happens, the “do type” activities take a backstage when they warrant more attention.

The emotional-motivational connection can sometimes be subtle but is nonetheless a powerful driver behind the behavioral dimension. David Merrill’s First Principles and John Keller’s ARCS model (attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction) remind us that practice and doing activities play a dual role in learning (Merrill 2017; Keller 2009). Not only can learners reinforce competencies through practice, but they can also become motivated to learn and practice more when they experience success accomplishing even small tasks during training. This is also where learning design should build in buffers of time for facilitators to provide guided feedback and reflection following key activities. In this way, the social and cognitive dimensions work synergistically along with the behavioral dimension to promote deeper and more memorable learning experiences.

Finally, the behavioral dimension also encompasses learners interacting with the functions, features, and tools in virtual training platforms. Users contributing in meaningful ways on whiteboards, posting chat responses, completing independent assignments, giving virtual presentations, or role playing in breakouts are all examples of doing.

Integrating All Four Dimensions

In their book Designing the Online Learning Experience, Conceição and Howles (2021) state that “learning experience design focuses on the structure and psychodynamics of individual and group experiences that take place in the context of a particular learning environment.” For us, this context is a virtual class environment where the psychodynamics play out with learner interactions among facilitators and learning colleagues. Structuring virtual learning experiences means synergistically interweaving the four dimensions. This is where some of the biggest learning design challenges can occur.

There is no single formula for integrating the four dimensions because each learning situation is different, and the emphasis given to a particular learning dimension can vary depending on the instructional context. A learning designer must therefore take into consideration at least three major factors:

• The type of learning objectives (performance skill or knowledge)

• The nature of the content (well-defined or ill-defined)

• Learner characteristics (motivation and prior knowledge)

For example, in virtual training sessions for developing technical skills or standard procedures, the learning goals and content often involve concepts and behaviors that are well-defined with little ambiguity. This is often best taught through expert demonstrations, Q&A, and practice exercises. In this context, the behavioral and cognitive dimension should be weighted more heavily in learning design with less prominent social interaction.

If, however, a training situation involves learners who lack motivation for the learning content, the learning design should incorporate more motivational and emotional elements throughout the session, beginning the moment individuals enter the virtual learning space and preferably even before. If the learning goals focus on complex decision-making skills or certain kinds of people business skills, social interactions and group problem solving activities can considerably enrich the learning experience.

Including elements of all four dimensions into training design is almost always a good idea and makes for more well-rounded and engaging learning experiences. However, the relative weight you award to each will depend on the circumstances. Although the four dimensions of learning may appear simple, it is the intentional and balanced integration of them into your virtual training where the LXD skill lies.

Learner and Task-Centered Design

As we practice using the experience design capability, it’s important to recognize it’s not just about pleasing learners. The bottom line of LXD must also be about improving workplace performance. Yet we strive to do this in a way that is meaningful and satisfying for learners, which is also a measurement of how we evaluate the training, as discussed further in chapter 10. So, as we practice LXD, we need to strike a balance between learner and task centeredness. Let’s start by focusing on the learner-centered aspect, what it means, and how to apply it to your designs.

Learner-Centered Empathic Design

A foundational principle of LXD, based on design thinking, is empathy for the learner. Empathy is often a misconstrued concept and can be interpreted in different ways. When applied to live online learning, empathy is approaching the design and delivery of a live online learning experience from a virtual learner’s perspective. What this means in essence is envisioning how a learner might think, feel, socially interact, and behave throughout their live online journey. This concept of empathy applies to all LXD work and can be referred to as empathic design (Conceição and Howles 2021).

Holding this learner perspective throughout the design process naturally leads to better learning experiences. This is because it establishes a closer alignment with learners for learning designers and facilitators. However, one of the biggest barriers to doing this is a pervasive and well-known psychological tendency called the “false consensus effect” (Ross, Greene, and House 1977). This is where we tend to project our beliefs, behaviors, and preferences onto other people, assuming they will respond the way we do. One of the most-often heard mantras in the field of user experience design when developing software applications is “You are not the user!” For LXD professionals, this translates to: “You are not the learner!” Acknowledging one’s own vulnerability to the false consensus bias and a tendency to confidently assume you know what learners need and how they should be trained is the first step to practicing empathic learning design.

When we fully apply learner-centered empathic design, we realize learning experiences are more than just what happens in a live online class. The experience begins before learners even log into a virtual course and extends after learners exit the platform. For example, a learner’s initial impression of your virtual training might occur via a pre-session communication from their LMS notifying them they are registered for a virtual class. This leads us to ask ourselves, what might it be like to be on the receiving end of this message? Does the communication convey emotional excitement for the course, or does it feel sterile and distant? Does the message help establish a social connection with learners? Is it personable? In all of this, we want to place ourselves in the shoes of the virtual learner and incorporate strategies from the cognitive, emotional, social, and behavioral dimensions of learning.

Practicing empathy in a live class was best illustrated by one of the most talented math teachers I’ve had the privilege of meeting. He had the remarkable ability to temporarily set aside what he knew about solving difficult mathematics problems, and instead look at them from a learner’s perspective, posing the same kinds of questions they might be asking. He would enact and articulate their confusion, struggle, and misconceptions and guide them to a deeper understanding. As you can imagine, he was a remarkable teacher. This is a good example of empathy that skilled facilitators can put into practice. You begin where your learners are.

When you work with subject matter experts (SMEs) to design learning, it’s also important to keep in mind that their understanding of a topic or skill is often skewed toward content and performance accuracy, and not as much on the learner and learning experience. Studies by Richard Clark have revealed that when teaching complex tasks, experts tend to omit well over 50 percent of necessary information that would be helpful to novice learners (Clark and Elen 2006). This is because a majority of experts’ skill has become automated and is not as easily accessible to conscious awareness. Also, accomplished experts, when designing and delivering instruction, tend to focus more on describing their actions rather than the thought process underlying what they are doing. This is key. Learners need to also understand how an expert is thinking about the problem. So, when working with SMEs, it’s important to continue emphasizing the learner perspective when designing instruction. Encourage SMEs to be more explicit about their underlying thought processes and help them uncover the seemingly simple but essential assumptions they unknowingly take for granted. This helps facilitate empathic design.

As virtual facilitators, we can look for opportunities to practice developing empathy in various aspects of our lives. For example, when I acted in stage plays, I always tried to find at least one opportunity during a rehearsal before opening night to sit in a seat in the last row of the auditorium. I imagined the perspective of a potential audience member as I sat in this seat. I then remembered that view from the last row when I was on stage. In my mind’s eye, I still recalled what it looked and felt like. I discovered this to be transformative because I noticed a shift inside that helped me to fill space on stage more fully. For example, I was more conscious of “cheating toward the audience” (turning my face toward the audience) when I delivered my lines, as well as gesturing bigger so they could be more easily seen from far away.

Empathic design strategies expand our perspectives in ways we may not have previously realized. This is how we keep learners’ needs and desires in the foreground. When we do this, we prioritize the learner’s perspective over our own design ideas, decisions, and preferences. The result is an enhanced and more effective learning solution. This is the empathic mindset of the learning experience designer and facilitator.

Task-Centered Design Thinking

Empathy also goes along with workplace performance improvement. Many training programs place an emphasis on knowing about a topic or discipline, as opposed to knowing how to perform it or apply knowledge. Deliberately integrating the behavior dimension into training attempts to bridge what Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) describe in the title of their book as The Knowing-Doing Gap. The tendency of training programs to overemphasize content and inert knowledge has been one of the greatest laments in the field of learning design as reflected in the eLearning Manifesto (Allen et al. 2014). In virtual training, we want to shift from a content- and instructor-centered focus to a performance- and task-centered perspective. This involves helping learners transfer the knowledge they’ve acquired at the cognitive level and apply it in real-world contexts such as making decisions, performing tasks, and having an impact on the organization.

As we have established, LXD incorporates design thinking, a holistic and human-centered way to solve problems. As we examine most training programs, their purpose often focuses on solving workplace performance problems and challenges. Because of this, LXD also must have a greater impact on individual workplace performance as employees upskill, reskill, and practice applying job-related tasks. This, of course, places a greater emphasis on the behavioral dimension of learning when designing virtual training.

After the green light has been given to proceed with a training solution, and virtual training has been selected as the appropriate delivery approach, here are some of the design thinking strategies I include in my initial exploratory phase of learning design:

• I rewrite learning objectives as performance objectives (what learners need to do). This serves as a basis for identifying what the focus of each learning activity should be. I then meet with stakeholders to collect their input on objectives and get final approval.

• I try to focus on the design of practice activities associated with a few of the most important learning objectives before thinking about content design. I create a rough outline or sketch for a practice activity and how it might flow. I regard these initial ideas as starting points that are OK to throw away. The first idea, no matter how good it might seem, is seldom the best idea.

• Next, I spend a little time validating some of the initial assumptions made by stakeholders and SMEs regarding learner needs and learning outcomes. I get out of my designer cave and hold video calls or brief informal conversations with people. If possible, I talk first with a few prospective learners and a stakeholder or two to get their reactions to the direction.

• If I’m working with a colleague or SME, I share this information with them and begin ideation and very rapid prototype outline sketches of a few of the learning practice activities. I’m not thinking about content at this point, but the performance tasks I want to simulate in each learning activity. The content comes later and gets wrapped around them.

This task-centered aspect of creating virtual training programs is an iterative process. It involves clarifying performance problems, ideating creative solutions, testing instructional strategies, and receiving feedback. We need to strike the right balance between learner engagement, meaningfulness, and performance impact. Sharon Boller and Laura Fletcher (2020) refer to this as hitting the sweet spot when incorporating design thinking into their training approach. In a work context, virtual training and learning have a bottom line. Therefore, prioritize the needs of stakeholders and learners.

Strategies for Applying LXD to Virtual Training

Let’s build on what we’ve learned about LXD thus far by looking at several core strategies for designing virtual training. You’ll find that these strategies can be applied broadly in almost any training design context, but our focus naturally is to enhance the learner experience in live virtual training environments.

Include Learners and Stakeholders in the Design Process

The instructional design for many training programs usually involves input from a limited number of individuals. In most organizations, an instructor or learning designer works with a SME to craft the design. As they create a training program, they make dozens of assumptions and decisions about what information learners need, how they will use it in their work context, what kinds of learning activities to include, and how they think learners will respond to the various design elements of the training. Input and ideas from other stakeholders, particularly those destined to be recipients of the instruction, are often seen as unnecessary and time consuming, especially when training is converted from in-person to virtual.

However, skilled designers adopt principles of design thinking in developing products, services, and professional development programs, and recognize the value of collaboration and feedback starting early in the design process. Many use a strategy often referred to as “participatory design,” which had been used successfully for decades in northern Europe before design thinking became popularized in the mid-1990s (DiSalvo et al. 2017). This design strategy, with its emphasis on user centeredness, has become a core practice in design thinking and UXD. It involves obtaining ideas and feedback from various stakeholders in making design decisions. Its most central principle is that the users or recipients of any product or service should have input into the design from the very beginning. This strategy is most useful for larger high-stakes training projects where live virtual training sessions may be part of a blend of instructional components such as coaching, on-demand microlearning modules, and performance support. However, it can also be useful in designing performance-focused learning activities that are part of live virtual or traditional in-person training sessions.

For example, one of my colleagues once worked for a major corporation as a program designer for a traditional classroom-based leadership development course with some online components. His colleagues offered conflicting opinions about what instructional methods to use in designing this course, as well as conflicting assumptions regarding target learner characteristics, needs, and learning preferences. Deciding to hear directly from learners themselves, he invited about 10 managers who were to be candidates to take the course to a one-hour lunch where he provided complimentary pizza and beverages. During this informal meeting, he shared the course goals, assumptions he and other training colleagues had about the prospective participants, and some initial course design ideas. The insights and design ideas obtained from participants were so fruitful, they significantly changed the trajectory of the initial course design. Furthermore, session participants expressed gratitude for being asked to provide input and ideas for a course they and their colleagues would likely be required to attend. In the end, that leadership training course became the most highly praised and most requested offering within all the company’s management development curriculum.

From a conventional instructional design perspective, actively soliciting learner feedback about design ideas may be viewed as a weakness professionally. In the last example, the course designer’s manager, after hearing about the ideation session with prospective learners, light-heartedly exclaimed “That’s cheating!” However, for myself and others who have used participatory design, we have observed that some of our best learning design ideas have come from collaboration with learners as well as other colleagues. Most individuals frequently express gratitude for being consulted and enjoy participating in the learning design process. Although some instructors and designers may see it as “cheating” or unnecessary, this LXD strategy usually improves the learning experience and also does not require a lot of time.

For designers of live virtual training and other instructional programs, this LXD strategy helps you adopt a more open, collaborative design mindset. The trick is to use participatory design in an efficient way that involves the least amount of time for all stakeholders involved, yet yields the most useful input. Incorporating collaboration into learning design can be done through brief informal conversations with stakeholders where you share initial design plans and challenges and invite ideas and feedback. Asking good questions and listening is key. Arranging one-on-one informal conversations or small group meetings, either face-to-face or via web conferencing, works best to avoid consensus bias. A 20-minute conversation with a single individual or an hour-long small group session is often adequate depending on the complexity of the training project and the number of key stakeholders who are involved.

Feedforward

This strategy is a natural extension of including learners in design decisions. As you assemble your content and learning activities for a virtual training program, open your door to collaboration. It is critical you start these conversations as early as possible. Any design feedback you receive from others after a virtual training program has been nearly finalized or after implementation comes too late. People rarely want to go back and perform major surgery on something that has already been developed, even if the initial assumptions and design ideas were off base. Gathering feedforward from stakeholders at the conceptualization phase prevents this from happening. For example, when I was just beginning to think about creating a new virtual training program for clients, I ran the early concept of my vision for this course by three colleagues in the field. I met with each of them separately to get their input and reactions. At this early stage, I wasn’t as invested as I otherwise might have been in my own ideas. They confirmed the concept and even fine-tuned and expanded my initial vision.

I have never regretted investing the time to have conversations with target users, colleagues, managers, stakeholders, or the time spent conducting short user interviews or doing dry run walk-throughs of virtual sessions with a few colleagues. I always learn many things from them to make them better, and they are always things I didn’t see myself or previously overlooked.

It’s true, the effort to understand your virtual learners and listen to them may take a bit more time, especially on the front end. Just remember that participatory and design thinking strategies may go slower initially so you can go faster later, and the quality of your final virtual training designs will be better because of it.

Develop Learner Personas

The conventional ADDIE instructional design process typically includes a target audience analysis. Most of the time, if performed at all, this analysis is done rapidly, focusing on the demographics and surface level characteristics of learners. The mental picture designers have of their learners often lacks depth and can be distorted by the designer’s own self-projections and biases. This is because we tend to assume our virtual learners are like us, falling prey to the false consensus effect mentioned earlier. Furthermore, when we create disembodied lists of learner characteristics and needs, designers can lose a sense of real people and how they think, feel, socially interact, and behave in a work context. Those involved in making learning design decisions need to be on the same page and keep a similar mental image of their learners in the forefront of their minds. One LXD technique adapted from design thinking that helps in developing a shared vision of target learners is creating learner personas.

Personas are fictional character profiles who are given first names and attributes that reflect a major segment of the actual learners participating in your virtual training program. These personas should be based on your interviews, conversations, and interactions with them, along with any information provided by their supervisors and managers who are familiar with target learners. Creating two or three personas can provide an adequate composite representation of a target learner group for design purposes. You can even use animated or cartoon-like representations of your personas and describe their backgrounds, what motivates them, what turns them off, and how much prior knowledge they have about the training topic. This human-centered and creative approach to portraying your target virtual learners as real people can be invaluable. As you plan and design a training session, you now have a mental picture of, for example, Karra, Meredith, and Travis in the forefront of your mind. As you design, you think about how they might react to what you envision happening in your live online class—what they might think, feel, say, and do. Personas are especially helpful when working with SMEs or a design team. Continually referencing personas as real people reminds everyone to think beyond their own personal learning design preferences and adopt a more empathic learner-centered frame of reference instead.

When I designed an online virtual training program for new hires, I interviewed three separate new employees in the organization who had only been there a few weeks. I asked probing questions related to the topic I would be training for new hires. I quickly constructed two personas named Hank and Lindsey to share with my co-designer. Not only did this make the design process more fun, but we were better able to pattern the design of the virtual sessions around authentic perceptions and real new-hire questions. Persona character sketches don’t have to be elaborate or detailed to remind yourself of who your real learners are. Figure 2-2 shows simple persona example from my design process.

Figure 2-2. Persona Example

Recall the four dimensions of learning as you create your personas. Imagine their thoughts, feelings, and behavioral tendencies, and how they might engage socially and participate in virtual collaborative group activities. Experiment with this for the design of your next virtual training class. The best designers in any field always have a clear mental picture of the people for whom they are creating a product, service, or learning experience. As I have discovered, taking the time to construct a few simple personas to refer to while designing virtual training sessions has not only been fun, but has helped shift my own and my colleagues’ instructional design thinking to be more learner centered. Please note that creating personas may not always be necessary for small, lower stakes, one-off virtual training sessions. But when working with colleagues where live virtual sessions might be a part of a much larger or highly visible training initiative, having a few personas to share with design colleagues can help everyone become more unified and learner-task centered in making design decisions.

Map the Learner Experience

Another design thinking tool increasingly used by learning experience designers in developing online and blended courses is called experience mapping, sometimes also referred to as journey mapping. The purpose of an experience map is to provide a more holistic “big picture” sense of the experience from a learner’s point of view. It is often used in conjunction with learner personas to help designers move beyond an instructor- or content-centered bias to a more learner-centered design mindset. An experience map traces learner interactions and the major touch points, instructional events, and moments that matter most to learners as they progress through an entire learning experience from start to finish. In practicing LXD, Jane Bozarth (2020) sums it up by saying that applying such strategies “involves creating and working from user personas rather than demographics and mapping out the journeys learners will take as they move to proficiency.” A learner experience map is part of empathic design. Like personas, you have flexibility in how you structure experience maps and the amount of detail needed for your learning context.

An experience map can take the form of a sequential list, a flow diagram, a table, or even a storyboard. It identifies and briefly describes the major phases and key interactions learners may have with content, learning activities, people, software tools, and other digital artifacts in the planned learning design. Based on personas, you take note of what a virtual learner might be thinking, feeling, and doing at various key junctures throughout the learning experience. The map is typically organized around major structural components and instructor–learner touch points of the live session. This can include pre-session announcements, prework, and logging into the virtual environment. It then progresses into learner interactions within the virtual session including introductions, discussions, breakout activities, instructor presentation segments, reflection exercises, and scenario-based challenges, all the way to the session close and any post-work or follow-up activities. The template example in Table 2-1 illustrates one way an experience may be constructed.

Table 2-1. Experience Map Example

For example, in one of my online virtual events, the first touch point in my learning experience map consisted of an email with a link to a brief facilitator welcome video. The video addressed the cognitive and emotional dimensions of the learning experience, emphasizing how the class could benefit participants, and included motivational elements to get them excited and interested. A few days prior to the session, learners received another email with logistic and technical reminders and a link to a brief article related to the topic. The map continues, documenting each touch point.

There are several benefits to mapping out the learner’s journey. First, you can begin to anticipate the types of questions learners might have and notice gaps and design changes that may need to be addressed. Second, you can also share the map with a colleague or even a prospective learner to walk through the experience and get feedback and ideas for tweaking it. Third, the experience map can also help you identify where and how you are interweaving the four learning dimensions throughout the entire virtual learning experience. Are there enough practice activities to cover all the objectives? Are social interactions included at the right times to reinforce cognitive learning? Finally, it’s important to keep in mind that this is not a content outline or list of instructor actions. Rather, it’s all about the learner and their anticipated journey through the learning experience. You can think of it almost like a scenario or story that includes a series of interconnected episodes comprising a learning journey that spotlights the learner.

Leverage the Peak-End Rule to End on a High Note

Earlier in this chapter, we discussed beginning a virtual training session in an emotionally motivating way. We also discussed how the four learning dimensions can be interwoven throughout an entire virtual session. Now we ask, how should a virtual learning experience end? Can we do this in a way that leaves learners feeling more positive and satisfied about their learning experience? This is where the peak-end rule comes into play. The peak-end rule refers to a cognitive bias that was first revealed by Daniel Kahneman and Barbara Frederickson and has been applied widely to studying how individuals mentally process and recall all kinds of life experiences, including learning experiences (Kahneman et al. 1993; Finn 2010). Keep in mind that all learning experiences are highly subjective. When individuals recall and evaluate a learning experience, what happens toward the end of the experience is often remembered and weighted more heavily. Therefore, it is important for trainers to end their virtual training sessions on a high note.

The other aspect of this principle relies on the fact that when individuals reflect on and evaluate a learning experience, they tend to focus on the most intense emotional moments, which are referred to as peaks. Their evaluation of an entire learning experience can become colored, either positively or negatively, around these peak moments that matter to them regardless of how minor they may seem to a designer and facilitator. So, it pays to spend time discussing what is most important for them. Also, when constructing an experience map for your training sessions, it is a good idea to identify and anticipate critical points where potential bumps in the road might occur and where learners may experience a heightened sense of accomplishment and pleasure. Build into your learning design plan periods where learners reflect on significant learning moments to give them prominence in memory. On the flip side, anticipate and plan for how to respond to and manage potential learner frustrations and negative experiences.

In my virtual training sessions, I try to apply this principle in several different ways. First, my lesson designs typically include a variety of brief explanatory sections, group discussion, decision-based scenarios, practice exercises, and breakout activities. Following significant learning moments, we pause to reflect and discuss how everyone might apply what they have learned to their jobs. I also have backup plans for critical junctures where technology glitches might occur. Often, I conclude a session with a fun, interactive review game or other kind of activity that helps reinforce the most important content from the class.

It is important not to rush these types of activities. Give participants the time and space they need to do the deep thinking. I also let them know I will be silent while they do this reflective work. In other sessions, I include a whiteboard exercise as a final activity, where I give time to reflect and complete action plans first. Before learners start writing their action plans, I prepare them by letting them know I will ask everyone to share a takeaway from class that they will apply right away. After the action plans are complete, I ask them to share this application idea on the virtual whiteboard. This gives the session a strong close and motivates learners for any subsequent training.

Making the Shift From Designing Instruction to Designing Learning Experiences

If our goal is to create engaging, meaningful, and impactful learning experiences for live virtual training, we may need to make some fundamental shifts in how we think about and approach learning design. This involves both breaking from and upgrading many conventional instructional practices, which necessitates rethinking old mental models of how learning and instruction take place in synchronous learning environments infused with new technology affordances.

It is all too easy to approach the virtual training environment like a conventional classroom and try to design learning experiences that conform to a closed classroom model. Seasoned online facilitators are very aware that what works well in-person does not always translate to best virtual training practice. As virtual training expert Jennifer Hofmann (2004) explains, “The most common error for newcomers to the synchronous training arena is assuming that the same rules that apply in a traditional classroom apply in a synchronous classroom.”

With new digital tools in virtual learning spaces, we move away from the traditional, conceptual model of a four-walled classroom. For example, facilitators can leverage polling tools, extend the voice of learners through chat boards, and provide multiple shared whiteboards with annotation tools for all participants. We can also include live experts from anywhere in the world to join our classes. In chapter 11, we talk more about adopting a blended approach where we can selectively combine and mix live virtual learning with other asynchronous components to add the greatest value. In short, virtual training technologies create new spaces for learning that enable new kinds of interactions and learning experiences.

Summary

As we apply LXD to virtual training, we expand and rejuvenate our conventional notions of traditional instructional design. Although the core concepts and practices used by many instructional designers and trainers may include LXD elements, our approach to LXD gives us a language and broader set of learning design strategies that are more holistic and learner-task centered.

The four learning dimensions framework serves as a foundation for designing learning experiences that skillfully integrate the cognitive, emotional. How we blend these elements can vary depending on the instructional context shaped by learning goals, type of content, and learner characteristics as well as the affordances of technology tools available within the virtual class environment. These elements work together to make learning experiences more engaging, meaningful, and impactful.

In LXD, we borrow practices from other fields, such as design thinking and user experience design (UXD), and incorporate evidence-based practices drawing from learning science research and our own data to make design decisions. LXD is more inclusive and people-centered, always keeping the learners’ perspectives in the foreground and initiating collaboration with colleagues and learners throughout the design process. Learners can participate in the learning design process, providing feedforward and feedback as well as sharing ideas through brief interviews and conversations. With LXD, we learn about our learners to create personas that inform our learner experience maps and designs.

Good design always has and will continue to be the foundation for successful virtual learning. Not only is it important to thoughtfully design learner experiences that integrate all four dimensions, but we also need to create learning environments where virtual participants are engaged and supported. Moving forward, I encourage you to continue developing and practicing your knowledge and skills in LXD and the experience design capability.

In the next chapter, we focus on how to optimize learner engagement and performance outcomes. Specifically, we’ll look at how to help learners thrive by shaping successful virtual learning environments.

Pro Tips for Practicing Your Experience Design Skills

TIP 1	Apply LXD by leading with experience, not content.
TIP 2	Use traditional learning objectives to drive design, but reframe the objectives shared with learners to be more motivational for them.
TIP 3	Integrate the four learning dimensions throughout the virtual learning experiences you design.
TIP 4	Be empathic by prioritizing your learners’ perspective over your own design ideas, decisions, and preferences.
TIP 5	Include target virtual learners in the early design process to solicit their feedback and gain their perspective on course design.
TIP 6	Create fictional virtual learner personas to guide your designs for larger-scale virtual training programs.
TIP 7	Create an experience map to envision your participants’ virtual learning journey from start to finish.
TIP 8	Apply the peak-end rule by triggering learners’ memories of what has mattered most to them in the learning experience.
TIP 9	Revamp your paradigm of a traditional four-walled classroom to an open, shared virtual learning space instead.