Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Flexibility in Formal Workplace Learning: Technology Applications for Engagement through the Lens of Universal Design for Learning

Abstract

How can technology be used to engage learners for workplace training? This is a question that designers and facilitators of organizational training experiences face in an era when adult learners are increasingly connected to technology devices and mediated experiences to learn. Technology in workplace training affords flexibility and can be used to provide multiple means of engaging learners, a centerpiece of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. UDL has traditionally been used to guide K-12 instructional design, but it is proposed in this article as a relevant lens to aid in engaging learners of supportive technologies in workplace training. Technology trends that impact engagement and learning in the workplace are explored, and technology-supported examples inspired by the UDL engagement principle are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Adams, J. (2013). Blended learning: Instructional design strategies for maximizing impact. International Journal of E-Learning, 12(1), 23–44.

  2. Alvarez, J., Plantec, J.-Y., Vermeulen, M., & Kolski, C. (2017). RDU model dedicated to evaluate needed counsels for serious game projects. Computers & Education, 114, 38–56.

  3. Anderson, R. C. (2018). Creative engagement: Embodied metaphor, the affective brain, and meaningful learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 12(2), 72–81.

  4. Association for Talent Development (ATD). (2018). 2018 state of the industry report. Alexandria: ATD Press.

  5. Association for Talent Development (ATD) Public Policy Advisory Group. (2018). Bridging the skills gap: Workforce development and the future of work. Alexandria: ATD Press.

  6. Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261–278.

  7. Ben-Eliyahu, A., Moore, D., Dorph, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 87–105.

  8. Billett, S., & Choy, S. (2013). Learning through work: Emerging perspectives and new challenges. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(4), 264–276.

  9. Bresnahan, T. F., Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (2002). Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 339–376.

  10. Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 6(3), 263–296.

  11. CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield: Author.

  12. Clapper, T. C. (2014). Situational interest and instructional design: a guide for simulation facilitators. Simulation & Gaming, 45(2), 167–182.

  13. Cutrer, W. B., Castro, D., Roy, K. M., & Turner, T. L. (2011). Use of an expert concept map as an advance organizer to improve understanding of respiratory failure. Medical Teacher, 33(12), 1018–1026.

  14. Dean, T., Lee-Post, A., & Hapke, H. (2017). Universal Design for Learning in teaching large lecture classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 39(1), 5–16.

  15. Deschaine, M. E., & Whale, D. E. (2017). Increasing student engagement in online educational leadership courses. Journal of Educators Online, 14(1), 1–12.

  16. Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 67–83.

  17. Foshay, W. R., & Hale, J. (2017). Application of principles of performance-based assessment to corporate certifications. TechTrends, 61(1), 71–76.

  18. Gavish, N., Gutiérrez, T., Webel, S., Rodríguez, J., & Tecchia, F. (2011). Design guidelines for the development of virtual reality and augmented reality training systems for maintenance and assembly tasks. Les Ulis: EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20110100029.

  19. Gavish, N., Gutiérrez, T., Webel, S., Rodríguez, J., Peveri, M., Bockholt, U., & Tecchia, F. (2015). Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(6), 778–798.

  20. Gronseth, S., & Hebert, W. (2019). GroupMe: Investigating use of mobile instant messaging in higher education courses. TechTrends, 63(1), 15–22.

  21. Harris, C. (2018). Reasonable adjustments for everyone: Exploring a paradigm change for nurse educators. Nurse Education in Practice, 33, 178–180.

  22. Hester, A. J., Hutchins, H. M., & Burke-Smalley, L. A. (2016). Web 2.0 and transfer: Trainers’ use of technology to support employees’ learning transfer on the job. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 29(3), 231–255.

  23. Hicks, C. (2018). Predicting knowledge workers’ participation in voluntary learning with employee characteristics and online learning tools. Journal of Workplace Learning, 30(2), 78–88.

  24. Hockings, C. (2010). Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: A synthesis of research. Heslington, York (UK): Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/inclusive_teaching_and_learning_in_he_synthesis_200410_0.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2019.

  25. Jacobs, R. L., & Park, Y. (2009). A proposed conceptual framework of workplace learning: Implications for theory development and research in human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 8(2), 133–150.

  26. Kang, Z., Dragoo, M. R., Yeagle, L., Shehab, R. L., Yuan, H., Ding, L., & West, S. G. (2018). Adaptive learning pedagogy of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) for multimodal training. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 27(1), 23–48.

  27. Keane, K., McCrea, D., & Russell, M. (2018). Personalizing feedback using voice comments. Open Praxis, 10(4), 309–324.

  28. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Book II. Affective domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc..

  29. Larbi-Apau, J. A., & Moseley, J. L. (2008). Evaluating the implementation of performance improvement training: The E^sup 3^ process for success. Performance Improvement, 47(8), 40–51.

  30. Lim, S., & Reeves, B. (2009). Being in the game: Effects of avatar choice and point of view on psychophysiological responses during play. Media Psychology, 12(4), 348–370.

  31. Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(3), 43–62.

  32. Massenberg, A. C., Schulte, E. M., & Kauffeld, S. (2017). Never too early: Learning transfer system factors affecting motivation to transfer before and after training programs. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28(1), 55–85.

  33. Masters, K., Ellaway, R. H., Topps, D., Archibald, D., & Hogue, R. J. (2016). Mobile technologies in medical education: AMEE guide no. 105. Medical Teacher, 38(6), 537–549.

  34. McCusker, M. (2013). Literacy software supports the development and performance of staff with dyslexia: a case study from transport for London. Development and Learning in Organizations, 27(5), 18–20.

  35. Miller, D. K., & Lang, P. L. (2016). Using the Universal Design for Learning approach in science laboratories to minimize student stress. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(11), 1823–1828.

  36. Mitgutsch, K. (2011). Serious learning in serious games: Learning in, through, and beyond serious games. In M. Ma, A. Oikonomou, & L. Jain (Eds.), Serious games and edutainment applications (pp. 45–58). London: Springer.

  37. Newman, I. (2019). When saying ‘go read it again’ won’t work: Multisensory ideas for more inclusive teaching & learning. Nurse Education in Practice, 34, 12–16.

  38. Piper, A. (2017). The dynamics of interpersonal behavior. Internal Auditor, 74(3), 50–55.

  39. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria: ASCD.

  40. Rose, D. H., & Strangman, N. (2007). Universal Design for Learning: Meeting the challenge of individual learning differences through a neurocognitive perspective. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5(4), 381–391.

  41. Rudebeck, P., & Rich, E. L. (2018). Orbifrontal cortex. Current Biology, 28, R1075–R1095.

  42. Sadler-Smith, E., & Smith, P. J. (2004). Strategies for accommodating individuals’ styles and preferences in flexible learning programmes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 395–412.

  43. Schoenbaum, G., & Roesch, M. (2005). Orbitofrontal cortex, associative learning, and expectancies. Neuron, 47(5), 633–636.

  44. Seok, S., DaCosta, B., & Hodges, R. (2018). A systematic review of empirically based Universal Design for Learning: Implementation and effectiveness of universal design in education for students with and without disabilities at the postsecondary level. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 171–189.

  45. Sheridan, E. (2019). Remaining Semper Paratus: Augmented reality in the coast guard. Performance Improvement, 58(6), 6–11.

  46. Short, H. (2014). A critical evaluation of the contribution of trust to effective technology enhanced learning in the workplace: a literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(6), 1014–1022.

  47. Siadaty, M., Gašević, D., Jovanović, J., Pata, K., Milikić, N., Holocher-Ertl, T., … Hatala, M. (2012). Self-regulated workplace learning: a pedagogical framework and semantic web-based environment. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 75–88.

  48. Tafarodi, R. W., Mehranvar, S., Panton, R. L., & Milne, A. B. (2002). Putting oneself in the task: Choice, personalization, and confidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 648–658.

  49. Thomas, K. J., & Akdere, M. (2013). Social media as collaborative media in workplace learning. Human Resource Development Review, 12(3), 329–344.

  50. Twyman, J. S., & Heward, W. L. (2018). How to improve student learning in every classroom now. International Journal of Educational Research, 87, 78–90.

  51. Wallace, D. (2019). Know thy learners. Talent Development, 73(3), 46–50.

  52. Yin, P., Ou, C. X. J., Davison, R. M., & Wu, J. (2018). Coping with mobile technology overload in the workplace. Internet Research, 28(5), 1189–1212.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Susie L. Gronseth.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gronseth, S.L., Hutchins, H.M. Flexibility in Formal Workplace Learning: Technology Applications for Engagement through the Lens of Universal Design for Learning. TechTrends 64, 211–218 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00455-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Universal Design for Learning
  • Learner engagement
  • E-learning
  • Technology