u/HaneneMaupas

I’m curious if others feel this too. As SME, I paticipated to the creation of serie of trainings. I was suprised to see that creating the content is not always the slowest part anymore. With AI, outlines, scripts, quiz questions, summaries, and even scenario ideas can be generated pretty quickly. But turning that into a real learning experience still feels messy.

1. You start with SME notes or documents.
2. Then you draft the course structure.
3. Then you build the slides.
4. Then you create interactions.
5. Then you rewrite feedback.
6. Then you test branching logic.
7. Then you check layouts.
8. Then you export to SCORM.
9. Then you upload to the LMS.
10. Then you test tracking.
11. Then you revise everything again after SME feedback.

And looks every step seems to happen in a different tool. For me, the biggest pain is not “creating an activity.” It is keeping the whole course coherent while moving between tools, formats, exports, and review cycles.

Is this also your experience? Where does your workflow usually slow down the most?

I’m starting to think the future of digital learning may shift away from giant linear courses toward smaller interactive learning objects. Instead of: 1-hour modules, long slide sequences, massive exports, we may see: reusable simulations, decision activities, adaptive exercises, contextual practice blocks. Feels closer to how people actually learn during work. It can be also inserted any time in people journey and not only during formal trainings !

Please let me know your thoughts

I want to build an online lesson/course, but I’m a bit worried about compliance and accessibility.

I’m not an expert in things like WCAG, standards, or LMS requirements, and it feels a bit overwhelming.
Do you usually handle this yourself, or are there tools/processes that make it easier?

We obsess over engagement during a training, course, or workshop about completion rates, quiz scores, live reactions. But the real question is: what actually sticks a week later? A month later? On the job?

Most orgs I've seen have no real answer. The session ends, the feedback form goes out, everyone rates it 4.2/5, and that's considered a win. But high satisfaction scores and actual knowledge retention are very different things.

What methods have you seen work for measuring what people actually remembered and applied not just what they felt good about in the moment?

Leaderboards and class rankings are everywhere but do they actually help people learn, or do they just add pressure?

Curious what others think, especially teachers and students who've experienced both sides.

I keep hearing people say things like “I’m a visual learner” or “I only learn by doing.” I get it. We all have preferences and I sincerly learn better when I experience things.

But I’m not sure those preferences should drive the whole learning design.

Sometimes the topic decides the format.

• If you’re learning pronunciation, you need to hear and practice it.
• If you’re learning a process, maybe a visual walkthrough helps.
• if you’re learning how to handle a difficult conversation, you probably need scenarios and feedback.

So I’m starting to think the question shouldn’t be “what’s my learning style?” but “what does this skill actually require?” Do you think learning styles are useful in practice, or do we overuse the idea?

I’ve been thinking about the difference between traditional authoring tools with AI features added on top, and AI-native authoring tools designed around AI from the beginning. A lot of traditional authoring tools now can generate slides, quizzes, summaries, or course outlines quickly. That’s useful, but it can still feel like AI is just an extra layer on top of the same old workflow.

AI-native authoring should be different. The learning designer should remain at the heart of the system, while AI becomes the engine of the authoring process, helping structure objectives, create interactive activities, build scenarios, generate assessments, add feedback, adapt content, and prepare everything for LMS deployment.

It’s about using AI to modernize the workflow, reduce technical friction, and fully unleash the creativity and expertise of learning designers. The real value is not just “faster course creation.” It is helping learning designers move from content production to experience design.

Curious how others see it: Are AI-native authoring tools actually improving learning design, or are they just making it easier to produce more content faster?

I’m curious how other learning designers are feeling about AI in their day-to-day work.

There is a lot of talk about AI replacing instructional designers, but I don’t really see it that way. To me, it feels more like the role is shifting.

AI is already helping with first drafts, outlines, scripts, quizzes, scenarios, visuals, and even video concepts. The biggest change is that we can move from idea to proof of concept much faster. Instead of spending days just preparing the first version, we can now test a draft, improve it, adapt it, and iterate much more quickly.

I also think vibe-coding is opening a new creative space for learning designers. Being able to describe an interaction, a scenario, or a learning flow and have AI help build it changes the production process. It reduces the technical barrier and gives designers more room to focus on the learning experience itself.

The impact is not only about speed. It can also reduce production costs, make personalization easier, and potentially increase the value of what learning designers can deliver. More variations, more interactivity, more tailored content, faster.

But it also means the job becomes less about simply producing content and more about judgment, structure, pedagogy, context, and quality control.

So I don’t think AI makes learning designers less important. I think it raises the expectations.

Curious to hear from others: has AI made your work easier, more creative, more strategic, or just more complicated?