Building a Diverse Training Curriculum

In 2016, as I was just finding my footing as a #diversity, #equity, and #inclusion practitioner, I read an article titled, "Why Diversity Programs Fail" and learned that DEI work was not as straightforward as I had thought. From hundreds of interviews and 30 years of data from more than 800 US companies, sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev found that the usual DEI interventions—mandatory diversity training, job tests, and grievance procedures—tended to REDUCE the representation of women, Black, Latine, and Asian managers. They detailed the unintended consequences of companies that deploy these intiatives: resentment and backlash, double standards, retaliation and more. There are many DEI initiatives and programs that work. Dobbin and Kalev found that programs that drive intergroup contact and draw on people's desire to look good meaningfully increase representation. Other research has found that standardizing hiring processes reduces hiring discrimination, developing competency criteria mitigates bias on promotions outcomes and feedback, designing the workday so people spend more time with others different from them lowers prejudice and increases belonging, and so on. But the $9.4-billion dollar DEI industry didn't get as big as it did by focusing on these evidence-based practices. Change management takes time, money, and coordination, and employers are often leery to take this approach unless forced. Instead, companies opt for one-off initiatives that they can breadcrumb their way toward the bare minimum—interventions that, unfortunately, tend to be either wholly ineffective or activate hostility and resentment that turn the clock back. As a solo practitioner in the late 2010s who was offering precisely the one-time trainings and workshops that were in-demand, this was all overwhelming to me. I knew that in my heart this work was important, but I also wanted my tactics to be effective. If I wasn't actually reducing discrimination, increasing retention, supporting thriving, then I wasn't doing my job properly. If the impact lay in adjacent work—coaching leaders to understand the role they had to play, working alongside HR teams to design standardized processes to mitigate bias, supporting employee resource groups to set better boundaries, designing impact measurement and infrastructure to support long-term behavior change, and so on—then I had to go in those directions. DEI is far from dead, but we can't pretend that the performative pre-backlash status quo was the best we had to offer. As I spoke to Vox in a recent article, this is our moment to double down on our impact, not just good intentions. We can't just aspire to design workplaces that are fair, accessible, inclusive, and representative for all; we have to actually demonstrate success, measurably and tangibly. Anti-DEI activists peddle fear. We beat them with hope—and the proof that we're building a better world for everyone than they could imagine.

Designing learning that works for every mind. In preparation for our session at World of Learning in October, Emma Hutchins and I are asking neurodivergent learners to share the 'one thing' above all others that would improve their digital learning experience. Thanks so much to everyone who engaged with and contributed to our last LI post. The list below is what we have so far. But are we missing anything? We'd love to hear from you in the comments if your 'one thing' doesn't appear on our list. Content design and structure - Provide clear and consistent instructions throughout all learning materials. - Ensure a clear and logical content structure so information fits neatly into well-defined categories. - Avoid poor colour contrast and other design issues that contribute to sensory overload. - Avoid locked navigation controls (like 'Continue' buttons) unless it is obvious what needs to be completed to progress. Control over media and sensory input - If possible, avoid linking to external video sites (such as YouTube) unless the learner’s return path is clear and accessible. - Do not include moving or animated content unless learners can pause or stop it. - Allow learners to change the speed of video content (both slower and faster) to suit their processing needs. - Always provide transcripts for video and audio to offer choice in how content is accessed. - Give learners control over narration and audio - allow them to start, stop, or bypass it entirely. - Keep multimedia experiences manageable to avoid overstimulation from multi-sensory overload. Assessment and feedback design - Write unambiguous questions and instructions and test them for clarity. - Provide clear, direct feedback for knowledge checks - explicitly state the correct answer and explain why it is correct. - Avoid double negatives in both questions and feedback, as they slow comprehension and retention. #WOL25 #Neurodiversity #Inclusion #Accessibility  (Five outlined human profiles, each with different colourful brain representations, including connected nodes, flowers, gears, puzzle pieces, and hearts, symbolising diverse thinking styles.)

Lots of organisations are trialling Microsoft Copilot, but few share the results. Vendors provide glowing case studies, but what about the mixed ones? That’s why I was excited to see a public study from the Office of Digital Government Western Australia. It was more nuanced than the usual rose-tinted vendor stories, offering valuable insights into AI adoption, raising questions about implementation strategies the rest of us can learn from 5,765 licenses deployed: solid sample size for a robust trial 33% adoption rate: Decent for a new, little-understood workplace technology, but hardly transformative The primary use? Summarising meetings & drafting—important but isolated tasks that lack the integration needed for broader impact. Copilot is doing work that might otherwise not get done, but it’s not yet the game-changer AI could be Observations: Limited integration: Meeting summaries and drafts are isolated activities. Without connecting tools to broader workflows, the potential for transformative value is lost Lack of process analysis: A comprehensive process review was recommended but appears not to have been done. Dropping tools into workflows without context limits ROI Adoption gaps: Why did only 33% adopt when meetings are universal? Barriers—technical, cultural, or support-related—likely played a role Training matters: People who undertook more than one type of training (eg workshops, peer learning, self-paced modules) showed much higher adoption rates. Varied, ongoing training is essential to building confidence and capability Technical limitations: Issues with Excel & Outlook and inaccuracies hurt productivity. Familiarity bias toward enterprise platforms like Microsoft might not always serve users best Prompt engineering struggles: Challenges with prompts suggest gaps in training or change management rather than tool design Over-reliance risks: Concerns about losing deep knowledge are valid. Organisations must balance efficiency with accountability and critical thinking Early adopter bias: Early users were perceived as more productive, which may foster resistance or fear—a common hurdle in change management If you’re planning a trial: Invest in varied training: Training shouldn’t be a one-off. Use diverse formats and reinforce adoption over time Choose fit-for-purpose tools: Don’t default to familiar vendors. Smaller, more agile tools can often deliver better results Conduct a discovery phase: A thorough process review ensures tools align with organisational needs, reducing risks and maximising ROI Set clear metrics: Measure costs, benefits, and adoption outcomes to guide experimentation and ensure accountability If your organisation is running a Copilot trial, or considering one, these steps can help you maximise success. And of course, you can always come talk to us at Lithos Partners. You knew that, right? Have you worked with AI tools like Copilot? I’d love to hear your experiences or tips for successful adoption.

For the past 10 months, I’ve been working undercover in quality assurance for a company, to see if their disability awareness training is making a real difference. I can’t name the company or the service, but from today’s “secret” experience, I can tell you this: disability awareness training delivered by people with lived experience changes the game. Six months ago, the trainer with lived experience left, and standard training took over. The impact was immediate and stark. Today, I sampled six experiences. In only two of them did I feel like a person and a valued customer. The other four left me feeling like an inconvenience—a wheelchair they had to figure out, rather than a person to serve. When the trainer with lived experience was in charge, the focus was on people, skills, and service—then on needs. But without that lived experience at the centre of training, the approach quickly reverts to seeing problems to fix rather than people to welcome. So, if you’re in charge of training and development, insist on including people with lived experience. It’s the difference between box-ticking and real, human-centred inclusion. #DisabilityInclusion #LivedExperience #InclusiveTraining #Accessibility #DisabilityAwareness #HumanCentredDesign #CustomerService #QualityAssurance #InclusionMatters #InclusiveLeadership #TrainingAndDevelopment

A few years ago I sat through a "neurodiversity awareness" session. Good slides. Clear definitions. Everyone nodded. Nobody left with anything they could do differently on Monday. At PegSquared that's the kind of training I refuse to deliver. Three things shape how I train instead: 1. Practical over performative. Awareness is the starting point, not the destination. Every session ends with adjustments and tools people can put into practice straight away. 2. Strengths first. This is the idea we built EY's Neuro-Diverse Centre of Excellence around, and it still shapes everything I do. Start with what neurodivergent employees do brilliantly, not what they find hard. 3. Business case, not box ticking. Neuro-inclusion isn't a diversity add-on. Done properly, it's a talent, retention and performance strategy. That's the argument that survives budget cuts. From awareness and lunch and learn sessions through to line manager workshops, recruitment training, train the trainer sessions and leadership briefings, I tailor the format to where an organisation is starting from. The common thread is practical skills and making neurodiversity relatable to everyone - whether that's helping managers support their teams with confidence, redesigning interview processes that quietly screen out brilliant candidates, helping give those who are neurodivergent the tools to navigate the workplace or putting inclusion directly into performance conversations at leadership level. Over a thousand people trained over the last year from Retail teams to Government Departments to Professional Services. Not one of those sessions ended with "nice slides, but what can I do about it?" If yours has, let's talk. #NeuroInclusion #NeurodiversityAtWork #Training #Leadership #LearningAndDevelopment

“Train-the-trainers” (TTT) is one of the most common methods used to scale up improvement & change capability across organisations, yet we often fail to set it up for success. A recent article, drawing on teacher professional development & transfer-of-training research, argues TTT should always be based on an “offer-and-use” model: OFFER: what the programme provides—facilitator expertise, session design, practice opportunities, feedback, follow-up support & evaluation. USE: what participants do with those opportunities—what they notice, how they make sense of it, how much they engage, what they learn, & whether they apply it in real work. How to design TTT that works & sticks: 1. Design for real-world use: Clarify the practical outcome - what trainers should do differently in their next sessions & what that should improve for the organisation. Plan beyond the classroom with post-course support so people can apply learning. Space learning over time rather than delivering it in one intensive block, because spacing & follow-ups support sustained use. 2. Use strong facilitators: Select facilitators who know the topic & how adults learn, how groups work & how to give useful feedback. Ensure they teach “how to make this stick at work” (apply & sustain practices), not only “how to deliver a session.” 3. Make practice central: Build the programme around realistic rehearsal: deliver, get feedback, & practise again until skills become automatic. Use participants’ real scenarios (especially change situations) to strengthen transfer. Include safe practice for difficult moments (challenge, unexpected questions) & treat mistakes as learning. Build peer learning so participants learn with & from each other, not just the facilitator. 4. Prepare participants to succeed: Assess what participants already know & can do, then tailor the learning. Build confidence to use skills at work (confidence predicts application). Help each person create a simple, specific plan for when & how they will use the approaches in their next training sessions. 5. Ensure workplace transfer support: Enable quick application (opportunities to deliver training soon after the course), plus time & resources to do it well. Provide ongoing support (feedback, coaching, & encouragement) from leaders, peers &/or the wider organisation. 6. Evaluate what matters: Go beyond satisfaction scores - assess whether trainers changed their practice & whether this improved outcomes for learners & the organisation. Use findings to improve the next iteration as a continuous improvement cycle, not a one-off event. https://lnkd.in/eJ-Xrxwm. By Prof. Dr. Susanne Wisshak & colleagues, sourced via John Whitfield MBA

There’s a reason training impact feels so hard to measure. It’s not because impact isn’t there. It’s because we look for it at the wrong time. Training impact doesn’t show up all at once. It unfolds in stages. Right after training, you won’t see behavior change yet. But you can see early signals: Do people understand it? Do they feel confident applying it? Do they see why it matters? These signals don’t prove impact. But they predict whether it’s even possible. A few weeks later, different things become visible: Early application Intent to use Where people get stuck This is where learning starts to show up at work. Months later, real change follows: Behavior shifts Adoption increases New habits form And only much later does it make sense to ask: Did this improve performance? Did it move the business? Was there ROI? Most training is evaluated far too early to see business impact. Good evaluation is about measuring the right things at the right time.

Learning flourishes when students are exposed to a rich tapestry of strategies that activate different parts of the brain and heart. Beyond memorization and review, innovative approaches like peer teaching, role-playing, project-based learning, and multisensory exploration allow learners to engage deeply and authentically. For example, when students teach a concept to classmates, they strengthen their communication, metacognition, and confidence. Role-playing historical events or scientific processes builds empathy, critical thinking, and problem-solving. Project-based learning such as designing a community garden or creating a presentation fosters collaboration, creativity, and real-world application. Multisensory strategies like using manipulatives, visuals, movement, and sound especially benefit neurodiverse learners, enhancing retention, focus, and emotional connection to content. These methods don’t just improve academic outcomes they cultivate lifelong skills like adaptability, initiative, and resilience. When teachers intentionally layer strategies that match students’ strengths and needs, they create classrooms that are inclusive, dynamic, and deeply empowering. #LearningInEveryWay

📚 Highlights of a compelling study on teachers’ knowledge of educational neuroscience—an emerging field that bridges cognitive science, psychology, and pedagogy to inform evidence-based teaching. 💡This research is especially relevant for Vocational Education and Training (VET), where diverse learner needs and practical skill development demand nuanced, inclusive, and scientifically grounded approaches. 🔍 The study introduces the Educational Neuroscience Knowledge Test (ENKT), a tool designed to assess teachers’ ability to distinguish between neuro-facts and neuromyths—critical for applying neuroscience responsibly in the classroom. Here are the key takeaways for VET: 🎯 Purpose & relevance: The paper evaluates UK teachers’ understanding of educational neuroscience and identifies predictors of knowledge. For VET, this is vital: trainers often work with learners with varied cognitive profiles, including those with special educational needs (SEN). 🧩 Main themes & findings: Formal Training Matters. Teachers with formal neuroscience education scored significantly higher than those relying on CPD or informal sources. VET educators should advocate for structured neuroscience modules in Initial Teacher Training (ITT) and CPD. 😱Neuromyths persist: Despite growing awareness, misconceptions like “learning styles” or “10% brain use” remain common. These myths can misguide instructional design in VET, especially in skills-based learning environments. 👥 SEN Knowledge is crucial: 96.4% of teachers had SEN experience, yet many lacked neuroscience-informed strategies. In VET, where learners may face barriers like dyslexia, ADHD, or sensory impairments, understanding neurodevelopmental diversity is essential for inclusive practice. 🧠 General Cognitive Functions (GCFs): Concepts like memory, attention, and neuroplasticity are foundational. For VET trainers, applying principles like spaced repetition or minimizing cognitive overload can enhance skill retention and learner engagement. 📊 Key stats ▪️Formal training group scored highest (M=28.45) vs CPD (M=20.74), informal (M=20.58), and no exposure (M=16.14). ▪️No correlation between years of teaching and neuroscience knowledge—experience alone doesn’t guarantee expertise. 🛠️ Implications for VET ▪️Embed neuroscience-informed content into VET teacher training. ▪️Develop accredited CPD programs focused on neurocognitive principles. ▪️Equip trainers to critically evaluate educational trends and avoid pseudoscientific practices. ▪️Use neuroscience to support learners with SEN and improve outcomes across skill domains. 🌍 Call to action VET systems must embrace educational neuroscience to foster evidence-informed, inclusive, and effective teaching. We need to move beyond intuition and tradition—toward science and equity. #EducationalNeuroscience #VETtraining #InclusiveEducation #TeacherDevelopment #SkillsForAll Nuno Crato Cedefop EU Employment and Skills European Training Foundation

We count on training to help prevent serious injuries and fatalities (SIFs). But when it comes to how that training is delivered, what actually works? The latest Construction Safety Research Alliance study put different delivery methods to the test. The team compared five formats: pre-recorded video, traditional lecture, interactive lecture, flipped classroom, and interactive lecture with hands-on activities. They evaluated each based on two outcomes: engagement (generating interest in SIF prevention) and skill (the ability to recognize high-energy hazards). The engagement results aligned with expectations: more interactive formats led to greater learner engagement. When it came to building skill, the results defied assumptions. The most effective formats landed at opposite ends of the spectrum. Low-cost video training and high-cost, hands-on instruction both produced the strongest skill gains. Traditional lecture methods, often seen as the default, was the least effective. The conclusion: If the goal is skill alone, video may offer the best value. But if you’re aiming for both engagement and skill, it may be worth investing in the most interactive approach. Kudos to the team, the PIs Siddharth Bhandari and Logan A. Perry, Ph.D. and our stellar PhD student, Roya Raeisinafchi. This study exemplifies rigorous design, disciplined experimentation, and a willingness to follow the evidence even when the results challenge assumptions. The paper is linked below and, as with all CSRA work, free to access. Please help us share the work and let us know what you think! https://lnkd.in/eWFZ9Pud