Artificial Intelligence can be used in a Learning Management System, an LXP, a talent development platform, a mentoring platform, skilling, and other learning systems.
AI and Questions – Consider
Let’s get right to the point.
Vendors are adding AI.
They are using it with similar functionality, and wait, not.
At some point, there will be more similarity, adding to the confusion about which is better for your learner versus just a neat feature that isn’t ideally suited for your use case or requirements.
Even for you, yes, you are the head of Learning and Development, HR, or Training.
What the learning system market is showing
Scenarios: I am not referring to what a system has in it today, although one mentoring platform coming this summer has it.
Instead, in the scenario situation, think around the following.
The use case.
The requirements.
Who is overseeing the system, regardless of type?
Overseeing the system is wide open because it can be misconstrued.
One instantly thinks, the administrator.
While this is an accurate statement unless the head of Training, L&D, HR, or whoever—let’s say the head of sales or marketing—is the administrator—and yes, it happens—then and only then is this part relevant for you.
You may have multiple systems, and you—the head of the entire department, division, association, and so on—are the admin. Then, you have secondary admins.
Customer training, clients, and partners will have their administrators, on top of the primary administrator, you—and here it might be you or someone you hired or tossed over to run the whole thing.
Ask yourself the following and identify which is relevant to your use case and which is a nice feature. It exists in the system today, or your vendor says it is on the roadmap for 2025.
Not every system has it; the data I see is between 5 percent and 10 percent of the entire, say, 900 to 1,000 systems that are commercial and not open source, Edtech specific, or built by your friends to save you a lot of dollars.
I present this range because, as noted above, the functionality is here; it’s just that not everybody has it.
Even one piece, for example.
That said, the functionality below is actual—as in, systems offer it, but at the level you wish they had it all, it isn’t in existence.
I will include where I see the next level of functionality which makes the most sense.
Content Creator – aka Authoring tool
This is by far the low-hanging fruit.
In other words, vendors add it, pushing it like nobody else has it.
Although the vendor may say theirs is very different, it offers capabilities that will really help whoever is creating the content.
Who, though, is creating the content?
Do you have an instructional designer behind the scenes using this content creator?
Probably not, because someone with ID skills is going to use a third-party content creator tool such as Storyline from Articulate.
Folks who are creating courses, who may not be at the level of an instructional designer, maybe using Storyline.
They may use other 3rd party authoring tools, even PowerPoint from Microsoft.
For those using or going to use the built-in content creator, the goal here is to push out the content quickly.
Your vendor may not say that publicly to you, but I see more often than not that the speed angle is essential for the salesperson to note.
Type in a word or a statement, and bam – here is the often-mentioned content.
I’ve seen the learning journey, which is a big no for now.
The content creator may include here you can edit the content – a standard feature with the systems.
There may be a block within the content where you can add images, links to YouTube, or whatever you want to appear in the content.
Depending on the vendor—which is quite limited—you may be able to add synthetic materials; audio is the most common for those who offer it.
I have seen ones that go far beyond that. It has potential, but it can be equally confusing.
It all depends on who is creating the content and why someone would want to do that when the goal – again, a push by the vendors themselves is speed and the idea of efficiency and purpose.
Do you anticipate an SME here to aid in building the content that will be pushed out?
You do not want to use a built-in content creator if you do.
Think this way: Is your LMS or whatever type of learning system you have experts in content creation (aka as an authoring tool)?
They are not.
A 3rd party should be, and more are than not.
Thus, the built-in tool with the LMS is a feature set folks want to save time and cost.
Creating the course, aka content
How many administrators do you know have a background in effective course design?
Who knows and understands how ADDIE works? Gagne anyone?
Went to school or learned on their own to learn instructional design and e-learning development?
I am self-taught, but what I find today isn’t the case.
Yes, you will have admins with the experience and knowledge to create strong courses and understand why WBT was created and its benefits.
You may, too. or not. Especially the latter on WBT.
Speed with AI.
Verification that it is accurate – ha.
It is so rare that vendors mention this.
I add this because who knows it unless the vendor stipulates it?
The L&D is gutted. The head of it has been laid off due to reorganization.
The system is handed over to HRIS.
OR some other department.
Does someone in HRIS, for example, have the background or the time to create effective courses or other types of content?
Hence, the speed, ease of doing it, and reliance on AI- here is your course.
If you are in sales training, ditto.
How practical is that course or piece of content for learning?
How much of that information is accurate from the person who has to create it when they have other job duties to do it?
If you believe that your learners will think, “This is great,” you are fooling yourself.
Retention -no.
You may think this because you are using the AI assessment tool, which generates questions that may or may not be 100% accurate.
Sure, you can edit them, but if you have no real idea of what you are looking at and think AI never makes a mistake, will you ask someone whether this is valid?
AI assessment is another hot commodity in learning systems.
Guess why?
Low-hanging fruit.
A vendor would have to be stubborn and have been in the sun too long to have a content creator tool and not an assessment one simultaneously.
I love how vendors mention you can add a question within the course.
Or, let’s add an avatar who can then ask the questions because that makes so much more sense.
It’s AI, after all.
I equally love vendors who offer the option of not using AI or an assessment tool to create the content.
Who would do this, i.e., not use it, if they have no background knowledge or experience around the questions approach? What works and doesn’t to attain short and long-term retention, let alone comprehension?
And then there is the whole synthesis aspect, which is the goal, yes, the goal to create a course, comprehensively learn it, and relate it.
A vendor rarely mentions that whole synthesis part, even among folks with learning and development or training backgrounds.
HR? Marketing? Sales? – doubtful.
Forget about adaptive and vendors who are using AI for that because, without synthesis, it is a cute word to mention.
Adaptive goes so far—and yes, it’s the holy grail. AI will greatly help in the long run, but the human element is a must.
Put it all together, and synthesis is still the big elephant in the room.
bounce on over to skills and AI.
Skill and AI
Skill mapping with AI – what a great idea – did I tell you about those hallucinations?
No?
Don’t worry—this is very fast, it will save you so much time, and you are going to love it.
How it really works is that the system (using AI) will allow you to add the job role, or the system can figure it out from your HRIS platform if it is integrated.
Anyway, you have a job role.
You have content.
Did I mention that you can add your skills and job role and tie it to content in our system?
Oh no? Well, in that case, we do.
Another vendor doesn’t have it.
Don’t worry; we can identify the skills the learner needs to acquire based on their skill rating, the content they have or plan to take, or some other fashion and add them.
Then, the system maps their current skills to the skills they need to achieve success in their current job role.
Success, though, is defined by you since how can you really, more importantly accurately, say it is true?
Those skill ratings will tell you.
They set their rating—as they see themselves. You, as the manager, set what you think is the actual rating for that skill, and then the system will identify what they need to do to attain that skill level.
Perhaps the administrator, who has no idea about contacting that manager, just leaves it blank.
No worries, who really needs skills development and mapping anyway?
What?
The manager or whoever has identified the skill rating they need to be tied to their current job role to be efficient?
The system aids in that with AI?
Tracks it even with each skill and how it compares to others in the company, or that specific job role within the company, or your department?
Wait, there is more.
The vendor uses a crowdsourcing mechanism, so your learner—okay, you too—can see how others using that vendor’s system are tied around that job role compared to the person.
I mean, what organization doesn’t want that?
Skills matching is a possibility. However, it only works if the learner is truthful about their skill level—which I should have mentioned earlier about the whole skills mapping tied to rating tied to job role tied to wanting to attain and deliver success in that current role.
Plus, that department’s manager or head must know that individual’s skill level.
If I have 100 people in my department, I will know all their skill levels and ratings on each item regarding how that learner identifies their skills.
Wait, I forgot, AI can do that for me.
Aid to such a degree that the output isn’t what you might expect.
What is a one, two, three, four, or five?
The learner won’t know.
Nor the manager.
Each will have a different perspective.
People generally rate themselves higher than they are, especially when they believe their job is at stake or they expect a raise.
Or heck, just in general.
Unless expectations are presented, such as what one is, those folks will not know.
Who doesn’t want a smiley face?
Copilots
Talk about hype that is underwhelming.
That sounds wonderful. Who doesn’t want assistance with some tasks?
That prompt you see that your learner must enter their question or statement when using a copilot or even a personal agent (an autonomus agent) works far better. While not a 100% consistently accurate output, it does help.
But you must know the correct prompts – words and phrases to use.
Personal Agents – A benefit or not?
The jury to me it out.
How are they beneficial to the learner?
From the workplace—the employee side—I can see that depending on the task or tasks and personality, i.e., A, B.
However, Learning?
A few vendors use a prompt window to generate output beyond the usual generative output from a learner asking questions or statements.
Deep thinking.
AI is horrible at it – at least for now.
This is how HR folks—if they are aware—can ask a question on a virtual application, which will require the person applying to actually think.
This will eliminate the cut-and-paste job using ChatGPT or some other Generative AI LLM.
Why aren’t LMS, LXP, TDP, and others excluding, say, a mentoring or coaching platform?
I prefer mentoring using that approach.
I see huge benefits beyond someone taking a course and the course itself.
To me, this is a way to truly ascertain how this—the skill, the job role tied to the skill, the ability to upskill or reskill, and even the content itself—can be impactful.
And get this –
It can lead to synthesis, depending on how it is leveraged in a system.
Bottom Line
I could go on with much more functionality at play today.
Here, though, is one to think about: the logical next step.
As mentioned earlier, some systems are starting to allow users to select a variety of synthetic voices for their content.
They offer recording and even a level of voice cloning.
It is far from perfect because to achieve elite, you need professional equipment, which an F500 or Global 2000 or even your company may have.
Then, you need at least 30 minutes to record, tapping into labels for the type of voice, when to use it, narration, conversational, etc. – a description that someone looking at the voice could figure out what it is, the target audience, and so on.
Modifications of the voice are likely, as is knowing what the provider is using for a model.
Is it old or new?
Systems that offer voice cloning do not base it on the above but rather on a few seconds with whatever you have.
Then, make sure you can upload the recording before using the voice cloning.
Here is why
You need professional equipment and good, if not strong, software for optimal results.
It will do the job for most folks, whether solid or strong professional equipment with audacity (a freebie).
You wouldn’t need professional equipment, just a good microphone and some basic skills—which means reading the help guide to leverage the software and record.
The Test
I decided to test something out.
I recorded my voice – and here are some particulars you may not be aware of but should consider – I used to work in radio and create promotional audio recordings for various companies, including a few radio programs.
I used professional equipment—top-of-the-line radio station equipment — to manipulate my voice in these promotional items.
Depending on the situation, I have professional equipment at home to manipulate my voice, or I choose not to.
In this case, I went with manipulation with added effects.
Separately, I tapped into an AI voice clone.
Which is it?
My voice
OR a clone of another voice using AI?
I might be tricking you.
After all, it is AI.
Because this post is all about it.
And he notes about systems cloning.
However, he may be fooling me because cloning exists; in this case, it is his voice using his equipment to manipulate and confuse.
E-Learning 24/7
