If you're an L&D leader, this scenario might sound familiar:

Financial services advisors need to nail high-stakes client conversations. Your team rolls out product training modules. Employees complete them. Maybe you organize some role-plays when schedules align. But nobody's quite sure if advisors are truly prepared for those critical moments.

The problem isn't your people or even your content. It's that traditional L&D approaches weren't designed for how learning actually happens in the workplace. Research on learning in the flow of work reveals a fundamental disconnect: we treat learning as something separate from work, when the most effective development happens embedded within daily tasks and challenges.

We looked at recent research to identify what makes workplace learning effective. The findings are clear: learning programs succeed when they're integrated with real work, purposefully designed with clear scaffolding, and enabled by technology that makes learning accessible in the moment of need.

Let's break down three research-backed practices that can move your learning programs from completed-but-forgotten to applied-and-effective.

‍

Practice 1: Embed Learning Within Real Work Tasks

The most significant predictor of learning effectiveness is simple: does learning happen in the context of actual work?

Multiple studies demonstrate that embedding learning within real work tasks enables immediate application and relevance. When employees practice skills in the same context where they'll use them, skill transfer increases dramatically compared to decontextualized training.

Traditional approach:

• Employees block time on their calendar
• They complete modules about generic scenarios
• Maybe there's a quiz to pass
• Then they return to their actual work and try to remember what they learned

Integrated approach:

• Learning happens at the point of need
• Practice scenarios mirror actual situations employees face
• Feedback connects directly to how they'll apply the skill
• Employees can immediately use what they practiced

Consider that financial services example. Instead of reviewing product information PDFs or trying to schedule a role-play with a colleague who might be available next Tuesday, what if advisors could pull up a pitch practice scenario the morning before a client meeting? They practice the actual pitch they're about to deliver, get immediate feedback on their approach, and walk into that meeting prepared.

Research from Billett (2002) and Raelin (1998) demonstrates that experiential learning approaches like job rotation, project assignments, and action learning enable immediate application precisely because they're embedded in real work contexts.

Implementation tip: Identify the high-stakes moments in your employees' work where skill really matters. Then design learning experiences that prepare them for those specific moments, accessible exactly when they need preparation.

‍

Practice 2: Design Programs with Clear Objectives and Progressive Scaffolding

The most effective learning programs are intentionally structured with clear objectives and progressive complexity that meets learners where they are.

Multiple studies confirm that scaffolding models and frameworks help tailor learning experiences to learners' contexts, ensuring meaningful participation and psychological safety. This is particularly critical for non-traditional learners or those developing skills in unfamiliar domains.

Think about how ineffective it is to throw someone into a complex scenario without building their foundational understanding first. Or conversely, how boring and pointless it feels to practice basic skills when you're already competent.

Purposeful program design means:

1. Clear learning objectives: Employees know exactly what skill they're developing and why it matters to their work.

2. Progressive complexity: Learning experiences start accessible and build in challenge as competence grows.

3. Contextual scaffolding: Support structures match the learner's current capability level and fade as mastery develops.

4. Psychological safety: Learning environments where it's safe to make mistakes and receive feedback without professional consequences.

Research by Díaz et al. (2025) and Jackson (2015) emphasizes that scaffolding improves engagement and outcomes precisely because it acknowledges that learners come with different backgrounds, comfort levels, and starting points.

Back to our financial services advisors: a well-designed program doesn't just throw them into practicing complex wealth management discussions. It might start with simpler scenarios—perhaps explaining a basic product feature—before progressing to handling objections, navigating difficult questions, or presenting comprehensive financial plans. Each layer builds competence and confidence for the next.

Organizations that implemented structured scaffolding report significantly higher learner confidence. In the financial services example, 89% of employees felt ready to apply what they learned, 88% felt more prepared, and 84% felt more confident—metrics that reflect the impact of purposeful design.

Implementation tip: Map out the natural progression of skill development for key competencies in your organization. Design learning experiences that match employees' current level and provide clear pathways to the next level of mastery.

‍

Practice 3: Leverage Technology for Just-in-Time, Personalized Learning

The third critical practice brings the first two together: using technology to make relevant, well-designed learning accessible exactly when employees need it.

Research by Giannakos et al. (2021), Hwang (2003), and Rosenberg (2000) demonstrates that digital platforms, e-learning systems, and knowledge management tools facilitate just-in-time learning, knowledge sharing, and collaboration. But not all technology serves learning equally well.

The difference between effective and ineffective learning technology comes down to three factors:

1. Accessibility: Can employees access learning in their moment of need, or do they need to schedule time, log into multiple systems, and navigate complex interfaces?

2. Personalization: Does the learning adapt to the employee's specific context and needs, or is it the same generic experience for everyone?

3. Feedback quality: Does the technology provide actionable, specific feedback that helps employees improve, or just completion tracking and quiz scores?

Traditional learning management systems often fail on all three counts. They're designed for administration and compliance tracking, not for supporting learning in the flow of work. Employees need to deliberately stop working, log in, find the right module, and complete it—creating friction exactly where learning needs to be frictionless.

The most effective learning technology removes barriers instead of creating them. It meets employees where they are, adapts to what they need, and provides feedback that actually helps them improve.

Consider the evolution of learning technology in customer-facing roles. Ten years ago, employees might attend quarterly workshops. Five years ago, they could access online modules. Today, the most forward-thinking organizations provide on-demand practice opportunities that employees can access right before important conversations.

AI-powered learning platforms are particularly effective at enabling this kind of just-in-time, personalized learning. They can provide realistic practice scenarios that adapt to employee responses, offer feedback on both content and delivery, and be available whenever employees need preparation, not just when training is scheduled.

Research by Al-Omary et al. (2024) emphasizes that regular feedback and structured assessment methods support the transfer and retention of new skills. But feedback only helps if it's timely, specific, and actionable—precisely what modern learning technology can provide at scale.

Implementation tip: Evaluate your current learning technology against these three criteria: Is it accessible in the moment of need? Does it personalize to individual contexts? Does it provide feedback that actually helps people improve? If not, it's time to explore alternatives designed for learning in the flow of work.

‍

Bringing It All Together

These three practices work together, not in isolation: Integration with real work ensures learning is relevant and immediately applicable. Purposeful design with scaffolding makes that learning accessible and confidence-building for employees at different skill levels. Technology enables both at scale, making well-designed, contextually relevant learning available exactly when employees need it.

For L&D leaders, the implications are significant. The traditional model of separate, scheduled training sessions isn't wrong because people don't care about development. It's less effective because it creates artificial separation between learning and work. The organizations seeing the strongest outcomes are the ones breaking down that separation.

‍

Ready to Transform Your Learning Programs?

Implementing these research-backed practices can feel daunting, but you don't have to figure it out alone. Colleva's AI-powered learning platform is designed specifically to enable learning in the flow of work with avatar-based practice scenarios that are accessible on-demand, progressively scaffolded to build confidence, and embedded exactly where employees need them.

Visit www.colleva.com to see how L&D leaders are making these practices work at scale, or schedule a demo to explore how Colleva could support learning transformation in your organization.

‍

References

Al-Omary, H., Soltani, A., Stewart, D., & Nazar, Z. (2024). Implementing learning into practice from continuous professional development activities: a scoping review of health professionals' views and experiences. BMC Medical Education, 24.

Billett, S. (2002). Workplace Pedagogic Practices: Co–participation and Learning. British Journal of Educational Studies, 50, 457-481.

Díaz, B., Delgado, C., Han, K., & Lynch, C. (2025). A scaffolding model for designing and implementing work-integrated learning experiences based on the analysis of the university and company's arrangements. Higher Education.

Giannakos, M., Mikalef, P., & Pappas, I. (2021). Systematic Literature Review of E-Learning Capabilities to Enhance Organizational Learning. Information Systems Frontiers, 24, 619-635.

Hwang, A. (2003). Training strategies in the management of knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7, 92-104.

Jackson, D. (2015). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40, 350-367.

Raelin, J. (1998). Work‐based learning in practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 10, 280-283.

Rosenberg, M. (2000). E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age.