Author: Rafael Palomino

My first professional transition happened when I went from being a graduate student to working in educational development at UC Santa Cruz. I loved the teaching part of grad school, and it felt natural enough to move into a role focused on helping others develop their teaching, and collaborating on university teaching and learning projects. 

When the time came to look for another career opportunity, I turned to industry. I knew my skills and experience could be applied to learning & development, especially in the field of instructional design. But I was much less confident about making that transition, and when I got the opportunity to move into corporate instructional design, I braced myself for a steep learning curve. 

Almost three years into the new gig now, I’m happy about what I was able to bring to this new environment, and how much I’ve grown. So, I thought I’d take this post to reflect on three things that surprised me the most about moving from teaching and learning in higher ed, to corporate L&D.

The business context doesn’t change the learning challenges like I thought it would.

To be clear, the business context changes everything. But I thought the world of KPIs, corporate values, regulatory requirements, and other aspects of being in a business instead of a school would fundamentally distort the stuff I like most about being a learning professional. But over time, it mostly just started to feel like different requirements and constraints that any professional feels. I remember being at a POD Conference while I was at UCSC and hearing instructional designers talk about how the accreditation process affected their work. I couldn’t relate to those specific experiences, but I could see how accreditation influenced everyone’s decisions, approaches, limitations, and priorities. 

It feels like I’m playing a teaching and learning video game, and I’ve dropped into a new world map and rules with my same core actions. At the core of my job, I still think about how to help people learn things, and how to help people instruct things they’re really passionate about, that they want others to learn. Whatever is going on with that other context stuff, I appreciate that the core of what I enjoy is still very much intact and has room for growth.

School experiences and practices permeate learning in industry more than I expected.

I was really interested in how learning practices, language, tools, and environments would look outside of school systems. I remember starting to “build a network” with industry L&D professionals online, and being surprised at how much discussion there was about classrooms, corporate “universities,” and how to set “passing grades.” Maybe it shouldn’t have been a surprise at all, but school experiences really impact how we think learning should look outside of it. I guess I thought those experiences would be more of a starting point than a template.

This does mean that people are a little more open to discussing things like assessment. On the other hand, it can be hard to get passed ideas like, there must be a quiz to pass for it “to count,” for example.

Reading Erin’s post on positionality, I also got to think more about why I always feel some kind of way when employees in corporate training are referred to as “students.” In grad school, I really struggled with the sudden switch from student to instructor in the teacher-student power dynamic, but it was also incredibly useful to think through any time I made an instructional decision. But outside of the school or university context, it feels so weird to bring in this dynamic when working colleague-to-colleague. There are plenty of other power dynamics to consider.

Most of the time, the use of “student” is just an innocuous word choice because people are used to it. But I also notice when this becomes an unexamined dynamic that influences assumptions about colleagues, their prior knowledge, facilitation choices, how and why we assess learning, what kind of environment supports learning, and how tools are discussed and marketed.

Sometimes, we don’t actually care about learning.

A few years ago, I was on a team developing a lab activity for general chemistry students. We wanted them to tinker with physiochemical properties and decided to use software that scientists use to simulate drug interactions. It let students create and design at a molecular level, and get quick feedback on what they’d done. They only were going to use a fraction of the program’s features, so we made a cheat sheet of the commands and functions they’d use most to help them jump in.

I agonized over this cheat sheet. Were we taking away their agency? Were we shutting down productive paths of learning just because we didn’t think it was part of the learning goals? Scott told me to chill, probably. We used it when we taught the lab, and it was fine. We didn’t notice any resistance, the students used it to create some pretty cool molecules, and they made all kinds of connections and explanations about the program’s simulations. All without having to do a long and boring module about how to use the software. 

Now, I realize we just made a nifty job aid. And that sometimes, it’s less important that someone learns something than it is to reference something, in the moment of need, to successfully complete a task. That’s performance support, sort of. While not new at all, this was new to me, and now I see it everywhere, from Ikea furniture assembly to flight emergency checklists. 

And while “corporate performance” sends off all sorts of alarm bells and whistles in my head, I’ve loved having this approach opened up to me more, and in obvious ways, since I’ve left higher ed. If I’m really advocating for learners (performers?), sometimes the most helpful thing is to do everything except train. Depending on the context of the job, a sound learning experience may be less learner-centric than making useful stuff for people to use when they need it.

---

I could probably figure out how to better connect these three areas, but more than anything, they’re the things that continue to surprise me in my new environment. There have been plenty of other changes, and some of them easily fade into my new world map and game rules. But I know not to get too comfortable with new environments, and I’m glad there’s so much to explore and challenge my thinking, decisions, and actions.