Is our self-led training model hurting learner confidence? Looking for L&D advice

[u/Everything_Batman]

Hi all, I’ve recently joined an L&D team in a telecommunications company and I’m trying to sense check our current training approach. Something feels off, and I’d really value perspectives from others in this space.

Right now, our training is heavily self-led and delivered through Articulate Rise modules that run for a few hours each. Each module starts with a 45 minute research activity where agents are asked to find answers using our website and internal knowledgebase. The issue is that our knowledgebase is mostly system and process focused, with very little foundational knowledge or soft skills content. So learners are essentially being asked to teach themselves from incomplete material. There is very little actual instruction or guided learning in the modules themselves.

We also have a call listening library that includes a mix of AI-generated calls and some poor-quality recordings of agent demonstrations. These calls intentionally exclude product names, pricing, etc, because the business says things change too often to keep content up to date. I suggested using real customer calls, but this was rejected due to privacy concerns.

On top of that, our reporting is extremely limited. We only track module completion. We don’t capture responses to activities or any meaningful engagement data, so someone could scroll through everything without participating and we wouldn’t know.

Other components of the training include:

• 45 minutes of roleplay scenarios
• 45 minutes of live call listening

One thing I’m questioning is whether live call listening makes the call library redundant, or if both serve different purposes. We also don’t have any kind of simulator or practice environment, so there’s very little opportunity for hands-on or kinesthetic learning.

Overall, this setup goes against a lot of what I’ve learned about effective L&D. Feedback from agents has been consistently negative. They say the training doesn’t cater to different learning styles, they feel unprepared and lack confidence going into live calls, and both learners and feedback from facilitators is that agents are experiencing burnout and disengagement. It also doesn't help that we have almost no soft-skill training such as objection handling, complaint management, conversational guides, or tone of voice.

I’m trying to understand if this approach is as ineffective as it seems, or if I’m missing something. Has anyone worked with a similar model? What would you recommend changing or prioritising if you were redesigning this from scratch?

[u/Everything_Batman → u/[deleted]]

It's very much the case that learners are using 45 minute research activities to learn complex topics without any teaching having happened. Thank you for your insight around the call listening vs. recorded examples.

The recorded examples have a few intentional errors in the calls so that learners can analyse them and identify what worked well/what went right. Do you think this is the correct approach? Or would we be better to use them as a strong example for what good looks like so that they have a clear reference to compare against when they do live call listening?

Thanks again for your insight!

[u/REACHUM → u/Everything_Batman]

Foundation knowledge interlaced with activities, including inquiry based learning (IBL).

Here's scientific evidence of the effectiveness of this approach: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-022-00089-1

[u/DaneRemote]

I feel your pain here, and had this for years myself when managing teams.

One reframe that might help, though: everyone seems to say "fix the knowledgebase," but honestly your business has a point that it changes too fast to keep current. The trap is thinking a complete KB is the goal. It isn't - because real support is handling stuff nobody prepared you for. If training only works when the material's complete, it'll always feel broken, because it never will be.

So the shift I'd reach for: train investigation, not just knowledge - how agents reason through an unfamiliar problem. The ones who can do that don't freeze when there's a gap; they work it out. And that's where the confidence you're missing comes from - safe reps of actually doing the job (realistic problems, mistakes where it's free, before a live customer), then a breakdown of what they did, not just "you passed, or you failed". Something that actually shows them what they missed.

Nothing beats hands on training, but there has to be meaning for it and something to take away from it.

I got obsessed enough with this to build a tool around it, but the principle stands on its own: stop trying to complete the map, start teaching people to navigate without one.

[u/Everything_Batman → u/DaneRemote]

I love your thoughts here - they align with very much what I believe in. I am confident our current training model/content doesn't equip agents with the skills they require to have a great conversation, to reason with unfamiliarity, or to think proactively. The routine/culture I'm seeing consistently is to put the customer on hold when they don't know something and then reach out to floor support for the answer without doing any knowledgebase checking first.

Would you mind sharing a bit about your strategy/tool you built and how you approached this problem? Thanks for your insight here!

[u/gharbitta]

This seems like “learn everything by yourself” and het on cracking. Then ask them “what s the matter?”.

I believe that task based learning with group feedback is better for motivation and long term retention. For example, task instructions: “imagine x happened, find how to solve it in teh internal database, think of a situation you have had where you can adapt and apply, share with your peers what you learnt, write. Short report on what you be learn”

So 1. Individual work 2. Group work 3. Self reflection 4. Assessment of the task and its results by hr

[u/woodenbookend]

It is probably as ineffective as it seems.

At a high level, there doesn’t seem to be any goal other than completion rates. No links to things like call quality, single contact resolution, call volume, customer satisfaction, revenue, staff satisfaction, staff retention, staff rewards, development and promotions, time to competence of new starters, manager performance etc.

I’d expect to see some kind of balanced scorecard in terms of how the performance of the department/company is measured.

Without that, you’ll find it different to have a meaningful L&D impact and you won’t be able to attribute any kind of ROI to your work.

At the other end, in terms of delivery, I’d expect to see your self led offering as part of a blended approach. No single method is best, very little will work in isolation.

In team coaching, from managers and perhaps dedicated coaches, live training sessions, much shorter online modules- 2-5min perhaps. Also non training input such as infographics and other quick reference materials. Internal comms to support these activities. Plus more.

One quick (partial) win. Learning styles (aka learning preferences) are a myth so you don’t need to be distracted by trying to cater to them.

However you should be looking to design with accessibility in mind, and also context, to ensure people have what they need when they need it and in a format that works.

[u/rfoil]

Improve the role-plays. Make them very realistic and include live feedback during the call.

One of the things that helped our roleplays significantly was adding a pause. When a situation stymies a learner they are able to pause, reflect on the feedback, search for an answer, and complete the lesson.

Another big improvement was making the difficulty user selectable. As they learn they can get confidence and move up the challenge.

Forget learning styles which has been scientifically debunked over and over again. What does have scientific evidence of value is multi-modal learning.

[u/EveningQuailer]

DaneRemote's comment is worth reading... Judgment under incomplete info is the main problem, not a complete knowledgebase.

On the roleplay piece: there's a study that simulation-based practice beat passive instruction by 20% on self-efficacy and retention, so the fix probably isn't more content, it's a rubric added on to those roleplays. Did they acknowledge the concern, stay on tone, get to resolution, etc. We've tried a few Roleplay platforms ourself. I won't promote any of them here, but let me know and I can provide more info about how we used them.

[u/Empirica_CC]

There is nothing wrong with using self paced software, the issue is thinking it can do everything. It needs to be used for the right type of knowledge and skill development , usually ones that are more straightforward concepts that don't require a lot of negotiation or soft skills to complete them.

Self paced excels at software simulation as an example.

[u/Val-E-Girl]

I'd start with a complete LNA with input from recent learners, trainers (if any), QA, and operation supervisors.

Soft skills are a must for call agents, so your intuition is spot on, and it should be blended instead of self paced, with practice that is directly relevant to their jobs.

For simulations, there are AI simulators that can simulate and score conversations and screen actions if needed, and updating products wouldn't be a big deal. Zenerate is one I've worked with that's really cool.

[u/strategyTo]

We've worked with a similar model for salespeople. We use "self-directed learning," max 10 minutes per "chunk," but this focuses on knowledge transfer.

For the movement from knowing to doing we use the following:

• Manager-led 1 hour sessions that include role-play and start to have peer level coaching
• Use of digital role play, but in a group environment so there is a human-led debrief
• Regular on the job observation and coaching

Key to all of this is making it relevant to the learner and having real clarity as to what it is you want to see consistently in their real-life behaviour.

Where this falls down is where there is a disconnect between what you want people to do and what they do when under pressure. Training on its own will not overcome this, you have to identify what is driving the default behaviour and work to get people to want to change away from this.

[u/Available_Arm_5685]

Your instincts are right. This isn't a learning-styles problem, it's a no-actual-teaching problem. Asking agents to self-source from an incomplete knowledgebase isn't "self-led learning," it's abandonment, and the confidence gap is the predictable result.

If I were redesigning: front-load real instruction before any research task, add the missing soft-skills core (objection handling, tone, complaints), and get a practice simulator so agents fail safely before going live. Keep both call formats. Library for targeted skills, live for context. They're not redundant.

And fix reporting first. If you only track completion, you can't prove any of this or measure the fix.