Professional Development

What Your Learners Really Need: Why Good Planning Starts With the Learning Gap in Training

If you’re starting at content or slides, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Why good trainings always start by identifying the learning gap

Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on Pexels

When an organization hires someone to create training, one of the first questions is often, “When will we see the content?” I understand why. Content feels tangible. Slides, handouts, videos, and modules look like progress. But the learning gap in training needs to come first, because content should not be the first deliverable. It should be the result of a gap analysis.

Until we know the real gap, we’re not designing from the problem. We’re designing from an assumption, a topic list, a speaker preference, a policy update, a product rollout, or someone’s idea of what must be “covered.” If the problem has not been defined, the content may not solve the real problem. It may not solve any problem at all.

Course design often starts in the wrong place

In a strong planning process, we need these 3 steps in this order:

1. Analysis: target audience, needs assessment or learning gap, and the overall goal (what I call the “big promise”). Only then can we move into…
2. Design and delivery: objectives, content, methods, and resources.
3. Evaluation happens next, but you can’t tack it on after the course has been delivered. It must be planned early enough to connect the learning gap, the instruction, and what actually changed.

In real life, however, many courses are not designed as much as assembled. The starting point is often:

• A topic someone wants addressed
• A popular speaker
• A new policy, mandate, device, or product feature list
• A slide deck from last year
• A vague question like, “What do we need to cover?”

That word “cover” should make us nervous. Good training is not about what the planning team wants to cover, what the speaker prefers to present, or what the product team wants to highlight. It’s about the gap between what learners are doing now and what they need to do.

What, exactly, is a learning gap?

A learning gap in training is the specific difference between current performance and needed performance.

Note: It is not the subject of the course, the slide deck, the continuing education requirement, or the list of features someone wants included. It’s the reason the education is needed.

Sometimes the gap is obvious: repeated errors, missed warning signs, skipped steps, incorrect device use, or the same questions arising again and again. Other times, learners may pass a post-test but still avoid the new workflow, keep doing things the old way, or understand the rationale but not trust the recommendation.

That’s why “this is new” is not enough. A new device, policy, workflow, or mandate may create a learning need, but we still need to ask what the learner needs to know, decide, value, trust, or do. Sometimes the real problem is not that people lack information. Sometimes they’re stuck in the mud of an old habit.

[embed]Successful Learning Design: How to Build Defensible, Scalable, and Monetizable Courses Is your course a true asset, or is it just popular? What it takes to make a course defensible, scalable, and…medium.com

Three common types of learning gaps

Using the classic language associated with Bloom’s taxonomy, learning gaps often fall into three broad domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor.

Cognitive

A cognitive gap involves knowledge, understanding, recognition, interpretation, judgment, or decision-making. In real life, cognitive gaps might manifest as:

• Overlooking: missing important cues
• Confusing: mixing up similar concepts
• Misinterpreting: missing the difference between normal variation and a warning sign
• Choosing poorly: making the wrong call when the situation changes

Affective

An affective gap involves attitudes, values, beliefs, trust, confidence, motivation, or willingness to act. Some people call this motivational, but affective is the classic educational term. This learning gap in training is often elusive or mistaken for cognitive or psychomotor gaps.

In real life, an affective gap may — and often does — exist when the learner understands the expectation but still does not accept it, trust it, value it, or choose it consistently. The gap may be affective if learners are:

• Resisting: treating the old way as easier, faster, safer, or more familiar
• Avoiding: delaying the new behavior, handing it off, or working around it
• Dismissing: calling the change busywork, overkill, unrealistic, or “not how we do it here”
• Mistrusting: doubting the recommendation, device, policy, evidence, or person asking them to change
• Hesitating: lacking confidence to use the new behavior under real conditions
• Reverting: falling back to the old way when rushed or unsupervised

My clients sometimes tell me that learners won’t change until they understand the “why.” Sometimes that’s true. Relevance matters. But research in the education field simply does not support this assumption as the magic bullet.

In my experience, the “why” question is not always about providing a rationale. Rather, it’s often that the new behavior is awkward, inconvenient, unfamiliar, poorly supported, or harder than the old way. Sometimes the learners are asking “why” because they need a justification, not a rationale. That’s an affective learning gap.

Next time you hear “why” questions, pause and wonder if the instructor needs to reduce friction, create practice, build confidence, address concerns, and make the new behavior feel possible.

Psychomotor

A psychomotor gap involves hands-on performance. In real life, the gap often looks like awkward, inconsistent, or unreliable technique. Learners may understand what they are supposed to do, but they cannot yet perform the skill safely, smoothly, or consistently. The gap may be psychomotor if learners are:

• Fumbling: struggling with equipment, controls, supplies, setup, or hand placement
• Misplacing: positioning, aligning, attaching, inserting, placing, or fitting something incorrectly
• Mistiming: moving too soon, waiting too long, rushing the sequence, or losing the rhythm under pressure
• Skipping: leaving out steps because the process is not yet familiar, automatic, or anchored in practice
• Overcorrecting: using too much or too little force, pressure, speed, tension, or adjustment
• Needing help: requiring repeated coaching, correction, reassurance, or rescue during the task
• Varying: performing the skill differently each time instead of using a consistent, reliable technique

[embed]How Do You Know Your Course Is a Success? Training Evaluation Beyond Satisfaction Surveys Learner satisfaction is only the starting point. Here’s how to measure whether your training delivered results that…medium.com

How to recognize the learning gap in training

The danger comes when we treat one kind of gap as if it were another.

More facts will not fix a trust problem.

A motivational message will not fix poor technique.

A return demonstration will not show whether the learner can make the right decision when the situation changes.

To recognize the learning gap in training, look first at the mismatch between expected performance and actual performance.

• What are learners doing now?
• What are they not doing?
• What should they be doing instead?
• What mistakes, delays, workarounds, complaints, safety concerns, repeated questions, or inconsistent behaviors keep showing up?

Then look at competent performers.

• What do they notice that others miss?
• What do they do more consistently?
• What decisions do they make sooner or more accurately?

Those behaviors give us better clues than the topic title.

The gap must drive goal, objectives, and methods

The goal, or big promise, should come from the learning gap. If the gap is decision-making, the goal can’t merely promise that learners will “understand” the topic. If the gap is hands-on performance, the goal can’t stop at describing the steps. If the gap is lack of motivation, the goal can’t pretend that more information alone will change behavior.

Once the gap is clear, the objective verbs become easier to choose. The verb does not come first. The gap comes first. Useful objective verbs may include:

• Cognitive: recognize, explain, compare, interpret, prioritize, decide
• Affective: value, trust, accept, commit to, choose, participate, advocate
• Psychomotor: perform, handle, position, adjust, operate, assemble, demonstrate

Once the learning gap in training is clear, we can decide what content belongs, what content does not belong, and what methods are most likely to help.

Cognitive gaps may need explanation, examples, comparison, cases, and decision practice.

Affective gaps may need relevance, credibility, discussion, consequences, trust-building, and confidence-building.

Psychomotor gaps may need demonstration, guided practice, feedback, repetition, and validation.

I don’t mean the analysis has to be frozen before design begins. Real projects are messier than that. Instructional design is a little like making meatloaf. You may start with a recipe, but you still taste and adjust as you go. The point is not to make analysis rigid. The point is to keep content anchored to the problem the education is supposed to solve.

Evaluation must match the gap

Evaluation should also follow the gap.

• A cognitive gap may need a post-test, case response, or decision-making scenario.
• A psychomotor gap may need return demonstration, simulation, observation, or checklist validation.
• An affective gap is harder to evaluate, but we can still look for confidence, intention, adoption, follow-through, or evidence that learners are choosing the new behavior.

Kirkpatrick gives us one familiar way to think about evaluation levels, but the point here is simpler: if the learning gap drove the training, the learning gap must also shape the evaluation. At a higher level, we may also look for behavior change, workflow improvement, safety indicators, quality measures, adoption, or other outcomes.

Good training should support a triple win.

• The learner wins because the education supports competent performance.
• The organization wins because training supports adoption, consistency, safety, trust, quality, product value, or operational performance.
• The patient, customer, client, community, or person served wins because that competence supports safer, better, more reliable care or service.

Beyond those three goals, good training should also support the larger standard of care or practice the field is trying to uphold.

Before you plan the content

Before you plan the content, find the learning gap in training. Ask what must change, what will move learners forward, and what will pull them back toward the old way.

That question matters more than the slide count, the speaker list, or the topics someone wants covered. Until you know the gap, content is just content. It may be accurate, polished, and well received, but it may not change the learner, the organization, the person served, or the standard of care and practice the training was supposed to support.

Before your next course, ask yourself this: are you designing from the learning gap in training, or are you still starting with what someone wants to cover?

[embed]Do You Need a Course Redesign or Retrofitting? Why “More” Isn’t Enough to Create Success Too many course expansions stop at “add more content.” Ask yourself these questions before you build a course that…medium.com

[embed]How to Tell If Your Course Is Nothing but a Content Dump Learn to tell a well-structured course from an inaccessible heap of information, and how to make sure your course…medium.com