The Pitfalls of Corporate Curriculum

An Introduction to the Corporate Education Landscape

     Success in the corporate sphere can be measured in multiple ways. Profits. Shares. Acquisitions. Envision the stock market trading floor. Chaos. Buy. Sell. Hand gestures. Eyes glued to the neon ticker tape peppered with acronyms and arrows. We have been conditioned to attribute this success to sound business models developed by faceless CEO’s with ineffable qualities who have maintained this level of accomplishment and profitability in absolute solidarity. That is a falsified representation. It looks good on screen and perpetuates a stereotypical American Dream vibe but is nothing more than the Great and Powerful Oz hiding behind a cheap green curtain.

     Behind the scenes, there are small gears and cogs making that happen, and businesses are taking note. Now more than ever, employers are investing in their human capital. Unsurprisingly, due to the accessibility of education in online formats, e-learning is growing at a rate of 7.2% over the next decade (Chang, 2017). The value of knowledgeable employees is a priceless asset, although mental capital is typically measured by intangible values. Internal corporate training has become a trend within adult education. Unfortunately, the implementation of corporate learning is still relatively new, and as a result, the presentation of information is archaic. The corporate curriculum is in need of a revolution. It is trapped in a rudimentary stasis which polarizes the learning environment in a wholly pedagogical or andragogical approach. Utilizing one teaching technique, especially within a diverse corporate setting, alienates the learner and mitigates their overall experience within the classroom setting. In order to create lasting learning outcomes and increase accountability in a corporate learning environment, pedagogical and andragogical methods must be equally introduced and utilized within training sessions regardless of the presentation method.

The Problem with Polarized Pedagogical Techniques

     Maintaining a fully pedagogical approach to corporate learning environments alienates learners who have distinct and special learning needs. The corporate learner is unlike the post-secondary learner. They do not necessarily possess any presupposed knowledge or a foundational baseline of knowledge to participate in training sessions. This makes facilitating a session intrinsically difficult. A facilitator is essentially blind to the delivery needs of their students. Although a facilitator can read the room and body language through visual cues, which may denote feelings of confusion, the most they can do is clarify the information presented. Facilitators cannot customize a curriculum to meet specific needs when they are not privy to these accommodations.

     The lack of meaningful dialogue between the facilitator and learner in a corporate setting limits overall engagement with course material. If the learner does not feel that the learning environment is curtailed to their specific needs or the information is beyond their comprehension, there is a high likelihood it will mar their perception of the educational process. The leaners may question the validity or worth of the information they are receiving and potentially associate the educational process with negative connotations.   

The Problem with Polarized Andragogical Techniques

     In the book, The Modern Practice of Education, Malcom Knowles’(1980) proposes assumptions regarding adult education. In summation, these assumptions suggest that adults have a desire and will to learn independently and have the capability to apply this knowledge to their current circumstances (Knowles, 1980). Although these ideas ring true to adult learners who take an active role in their educational development, it is problematic for those who take a passive interest in furthering their education. This is especially true when courses are offered in an online format because “…online education often appeals to a specific type of learner, one presumed to be more self-motivated and self-directed, in part, because of their frequent status as adult learners” (Blair 2006 p.34). Within a corporate realm, training is mandatory and is met with varying receptions and attitudes. Most development sessions are met with heavy sighs and emphatic eye-rolls. Therefore, it is difficult to entrust corporate learners to take a vested interest in completing mandated courses within delegated deadlines or within the guidelines of completing the testing on an individual basis. Additionally, digital learning where online communities are utilized, such as web-conferencing, where active participation is required within course objectives, corporate learners who are accustomed to, “…face-to-face models in which they could be physically present but not necessarily intellectually so…” (Blair p. 37) struggle to meet course demands due to a lack of self-motivated inquiry. Ultimately these educational opportunities become fruitless.

     Andragogical techniques suggest that the learners are responsible for decisions regarding their learning. According to Bonk (2015), “Self-directed learning allows learners to acquire, conduct, and evaluate their own learning experiences” (p.350). Unfortunately, this is rare and in some cases a non-existent option within corporate curricula as much of the course guidelines are mandated by an executive level caucus. In this sense, particular aspects of a corporate andragogical approach is an unattainable illusion.     

Introducing Pedandragogy

     Pedandragogy is a Franken-term that synthesizes both pedagogy and andragogy into a hybrid amalgamation of sorts. The proposed practice accommodates varied student demographics and merges instructor led and self-led learning strategies. Pedandrogogy: A way forward to self-engaged learning, describes the term as being, “…a synthesis of the core elements of pedagogy and andragogy. Pedandragogy is a model that promotes and encourages the development of effective learning environments where self-engaged learning by individuals of all ages can be fostered” (Samaroo, Cooper, Green, 2013, p.74). It is further described as being “…based on constructivist learning theory that suggests ways in which learners can become self-engaged, along with the roles teachers, instructors, and institutions can play in helping facilitate this approach to learning” (Samaroo et al, 2013, p. 77).

     This definition emphasizes a learning process that still empowers the learner to take an active role within their educational development, however, it also highlights the importance of the facilitator as being an intimate source of support and an active resource in cooperatively designing, managing, and completing educational goals and curricula to best suit the needs and goals of the learner. This dynamic helps create a sense of community and open dialogue between the facilitator and learner which also allows for shared accountability for learning outcomes. This open dialogue also creates a great foundation for genuine assessment that is fluid between facilitator and the learner. They are able to provide constructive critiques regarding course design, presentation methods, and overall outcomes. Without this equalized dynamic, curricula remains stagnant and static, thereby not reflecting relevant and meaningful educational opportunities.

Pedandragogy: Accountability and Assessment

     Another pitfall of the corporate education model is the onus of accountability. To put it bluntly, there isn’t any. A corporate trainer or facilitator is responsible for two things: presenting the desired information in the fastest method possible and justifying loose yet somewhat measurable learning outcomes. More specifically, due to restraints and pressure from corporate figure heads, employees are trained quickly and efficiently to diminish interruptions to their productivity. This overarching stipulation typically means that employees are hit with a large amount of information at one time with a limited opportunity to digest and retain the information beyond a simple regurgitation of facts. Self-directed online courses also shirk assessment accountability. Digital sessions are followed by brief multiple choice questions. Although there are stipulations for passing the session with a minimum requirement, students are given multiple chances to meet this requirement. Lenient forms of assessment and accountability could become a liability especially when the training is health and safety related. 

     Introducing a pedandragogical approach will help implement quality assessment indicators. Much like other programs within the corporate milieu, which use key performance indicators, corporate education and training sessions could use these standards to not only gauge the learners’ outcomes, but use open dialogue and assessment tools to improve the content and assist the facilitator improve presentation methods and classroom engagement. Assessment and accountability tools could be introduced in the form of problem based learning scenarios and group testing. These forms of assessment would be evaluated by the facilitator in real-time where applicable. When difficulties with course materials emerge, the facilitator can easily take the opportunity to clarify and correct areas of difficulty. Once again, in the corporate world, an andragogical approach is not wholly feasible due to external limitations, therefore introducing a pedandragogical teaching philosophy with open dialogue between facilitators and learners, during in-class training or after the completion of an online session, will assist in the formation and reformation of appropriate course materials. Just as learners are faced with assessment after an asynchronous online course, the completion of the course should be followed by a brief assessment of the course material and style.

     For example, a training session designed to educate employees on using specific technologies is rolled out to all sites. During a training or online session, it might be flagged that certain aspects of the training are not applicable to all sites. This dialogue and feedback from the learner to the facilitator or curriculum designer would assist in the implementation of more site specific material creating a heightened sense of learner engagement with relevant information and learning outcomes. The notion of a pedandragogical approach in this environment will create more live documents and curriculums that are not steadfast to rigid implementation from a head office but conversely allows for malleability based on the needs of the facilitator and learner.   

Conclusions

     Corporate education will continue to evolve over the coming years in order to incorporate industry best practices and implement new technologies to make learning more accessible and standardized. Although new technologies make corporate education agendas easier and faster to roll out to learners, in-class sessions are not going to disappear any time soon. Regardless of the preferred delivery methods for educational content, there is a clear need to change the teaching and learning dichotomy to better suit the needs and accommodations not only of a fast-paced corporate setting but its varied learners. The pedandragogical approach allows for the ideal synthesis of pedagogical and andragogical philosophies and core principles to create lasting and positive learning experiences with genuine assessment tools and fluidity for necessary changes and alterations to better meet facilitator and learner needs.

     Although the corporate educational environment will always face challenges, due to limited time and in some cases budget, there will always be a need for constant evaluation and change to proposed corporate curricula and the ways in which facilitators and students cultivate a mutually beneficial and productive relationship which in the end impacts the company in a positive and measurable way. 

References

Bonk, C. J., Mimi, M. L., Kou, X., Xu, S., & Feng-Ru Sheu. (2015). Understanding the self-directed online learning preferences, goals, achievements, and challenges of MIT OpenCourseWare subscribers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 349-365. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/docview/1683512065?accountid=14694

Chang, R. (2017, March 9). Report: Global e-learning market to grow 7.2% over next decade. Retrieved from https://campustechnology.com/articles/2017/03/09/global-elearningmarket-to-grow-7.2-percent-over-next-decade.aspx

Ferguson, M. E. (2018). Corporate trainer's experiences with training credit union staff in a blended learning environment (Order No. 10807910). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2039675305). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.uproxy.library.dcuoit.ca/docview/2039675305?accountid=14694

Knowles, M.S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education. (revised and updated). Chicago: Association Press (originally published in 1970).

Samaroo, S., Cooper, E., & Green, T. (2013). Pedandragogy: A way forward to self-engaged learning. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 25(3), 76-90. doi:10.1002/nha3.20032