Individualised training and support pathways:

Is it really that simple? What paradoxes are at play?

Individualisation as the new guiding principle?

Individualised training pathways are nothing new. They have an impact on the relevance of actions, the involvement of learners and, of course, the overall cost of a scheme. Individualisation means doing what is right for each person, and therefore adjusting our work as closely as possible to the needs and situations of each individual. This gradual shift from a transmissive, vertical approach (symbolised by the university lecture theatre) to more differentiated, cooperative processes (illustrated by “flipped” classrooms) is well known and documented. But today, individualisation is also enshrined in more prescriptive texts (laws, specifications, certifications, etc.) which provide a precise framework for its implementation.  It also aims to reduce the costs generated by training courses that are sometimes considered to be too long and systematic, and that do not take sufficient account of the experiential knowledge acquired by trainees. The development of distance learning, partly due to the COVID crisis, has amplified social demand.

For example, in the Qualiopi reference framework, criterion No. 3 covers this field. “The adaptation of services and reception, support, monitoring and evaluation methods to the beneficiaries”, and more specifically indicator 10: “The service provider implements and adapts the service, support and monitoring to the beneficiaries.” The verb “adapt” expresses this need. Individualisation also features in public policy, which strives to make it easier to use services and facilities. In short, to combat the lack of recourse to the law. It is important to both adapt the methods and innovate to appeal to all audiences, wherever they are (the famous slogan “for everyone, everywhere”).

This tension between normative requirements and the pressure to innovate is very clear, particularly in the specifications for the Skills Investment Programme concerning the identification and mobilisation of “invisible” audiences[1]. These specifications read: “Innovative ways of mobilising people are expected as part of this call for projects, in order to “raise awareness” and direct people towards the stakeholders who can offer support or training solutions and the services they provide. The services themselves may need to evolve to adapt to people's expectations. Projects must be genuinely innovative.” But the final sentence is very revealing of the paradoxes at play: “Applicants to this call for projects must demonstrate that their project differs from their usual actions and service offers.”

In short, if this demand for individualisation is to be understood, it may have to be deployed in systems that have prescriptive requirements for selection, approval, certification or even funding, which may be seen as paradoxical in relation to what real individualisation practices require. This requirement is repeated and specified both in legislation (2014 and 2018) and in specifications. In a way, it seems both obvious and consensual.

What are we talking about?

The terms individualisation and personalisation are often used interchangeably. Although there are debates on the differences between them, we suggest starting from a definition that is fairly consensual in education: “Personalisation refers to a process that takes into account the individual and their uniqueness, while differentiation and individualisation are modes of educational organisation that facilitate the implementation of this attention to the individual...”[2].

The advantage of this definition is that it distinguishes between interacting with an individual person whose situation, progress and wishes are taken into account (personalisation) and pedagogical arrangements that facilitate pedagogical differentiation and therefore individualisation. In this respect, we can distinguish three levers of individualisation: adjusting duration and content to individual needs; hybridisation of learning methods; personalised support.

In most cases, the process of individualisation is already set out in educational engineering (initial diagnosis, modularisation of content, multimodality, etc.). Personalisation is often adjusted to suit the situation, and therefore presupposes support in the context of the situation (an initial co-constructed working alliance and regular readjustments). So, since everyone agrees that it is necessary, how is it deployed?

Individualisation is not so simple and there are contradicting approaches

However, on analysis, nothing is quite so simple. A very recent study by France Compétences[3] “analyses the reasons why this ambition for greater individualisation is struggling to be embodied in reality and to get beyond experimental or “niche” deployment.”  This can be explained by the combination of three aspects: “The characteristics of the training and the certification to which it relates; the ability of the training organisation concerned to provide the training; the characteristics of the purchasing and financing practices implemented.”

This study reveals the tensions and paradoxes in which training organisations can find themselves. If we extend this observation to all those involved in support systems, the analyses are similar. We can always point to the difficulty organisations have in adapting their teaching methods, but analysis clearly shows that purchasing and financing methods have a considerable impact. For example, if the method of contact with the public is changed (e.g. “reaching out” by physically going to them) but this educational investment is not integrated into the overall financial engineering (maintaining funding per trainee hour), the organisation will be more conservative in its innovation. What's more, the selection process itself raises questions. As training purchasers themselves concede: “We are not pedagogy specialists. We are specialists in the purchase of training courses”. They recognise their limited capacity to judge the technical value of the proposals, and consider that the fact that the training organisation holds Qualiopi certification and approval from the certifier constitutes a guarantee of its professionalism”.

Tension between normativity and singularity

The France Compétences study has the merit of providing valuable analysis. Above all, it highlights the paradoxical nature of the situation. As we have seen, public authorities are making certain factors a challenge for the recognition and selection of structures: the adaptation of services (Qualiopi), taking into account the characteristics of the public and their expectations (specifications) and innovation (not doing “more of the same”). At the same time, however, they are asking for compliance with standards (financial, legal, etc.) and reporting on the activity carried out, which can seem very burdensome and drive action towards ever greater compliance. But individualisation requires flexibility, latitude and room for negotiation. These compliance issues are played out at the level of the structure (training organisation, support organisation) but are also disseminated to professionals in the field, who are simultaneously confronted with very high expectations on the part of individuals in terms of how their uniqueness is taken into account.

In the AppEUnance project in which the KELVOA association is involved (blog article to come), interviews with learners from several European work-study training organisations are very enlightening about the public's expectations in terms of individualisation. As one person put it: “What I really like is when the educator allows me to do things my own way.”

In most of the interviews analysed, it was the trust and autonomy left to the learner that appeared to be central, as well as the personalised relationship made possible.

Few elements of individualisation are referred to the organisation or the educational system. It is above all the relational elements that are valued (perhaps because they are visible and experienced, whereas the educational aspects may be seen as being more in the background). In summary, trainees emphasise the following points:

• A relationship based on trust, consideration and the perceived conviction that each person is “capable”
• An environment conducive to experience, both in terms of the project work on offer and the collaborative work that is encouraged
• Regular adjustments as the process progresses, but always based on close relationships

In short, what the public are telling us is that they feel at ease in a training scheme when they experience it:

• Focus on personal concerns as an individual with a history and desires;
• Regular readjustment processes in which people can express themselves freely on their progress and when what they say is taken into account.

But it soon becomes clear that this aspect of engineering cannot be entirely predetermined. For the educator, it refers first and foremost to their ability to do the right thing in the right situation.

The pitfalls of excessive standardisation

However, with the current focus on standardisation, we run the risk of prefiguring systems and sequencing engineering, which may lead us to believe that all we have to do is follow the checklist and everything will work.

And yet, this agile, iterative and diplomatic engineering can only be carried out in relation to the individual and in situ.

It requires:

• That the structure leaves room for the professional to invest in this aspect
• That the professional is able to develop sufficient flexibility in their work to be able to adapt and opt for any alternatives that come up.

Our discussions with people working in professional development were very enlightening. If a service is truly centred on the concerns of the individual, it can never be entirely pre-determined. What makes it so powerful is undoubtedly the fact that it is novel and inventive, which presupposes both a high degree of mastery of the resources by the professional and, above all, the ability to use these resources in the light of the person's situation and concerns (raising awareness and helping them to use the resources if necessary) and not in a systematic, uniform way.

Faced with the difficulty of reconciling opposites, it is not a question of disputing the need for formal frameworks. Although a framework is essential, it should focus on:

• The regulations to be complied with (for example, issuing a summary document and complying with the three phases of skills assessment).
• The essential principles of action and the approach of the educator or support worker.

In short, to provide elements of doctrine (for more on this subject, see the proposal in the France Stratégie report “Relever le défi des transitions professionnelles” (Meeting the challenge of professional transitions)[4].

This tension between respecting norms and valuing individuality sometimes takes unlikely, even hilarious, turns. A number of offbeat “pseudo” cover letters are currently doing the rounds on social networks, positioned as “non-cover letters”. Basically, the argument goes like this: Dear recruiter, you could settle for the drivel written at a careers workshop, a letter downloaded from the internet, or one automatically generated by AI. Or we could meet and have a real discussion. Changes in the job market are encouraging jobseekers to try more original, less sterile approaches. Of course, you will say (and rightly so) that it's the ultimate form of conformity to do something different on purpose! But beyond the anecdote, this sheds light on the excesses of a highly individualistic society that produces a great deal of conformity (particularly through the cognitive bubbles of social networks) but also demands a singularity that sets us apart. All marketing in the broadest sense is based on it (competitive advantage, employer brand), but also self-marketing, which is still very present on social networks.

Because after the governance by numbers illustrated by Alain Supiot, aren't we now in the process of steering by standards and certifications?

As I was analysing the studies and data available on the relationship between standards, certifications and compliance (try changing the windows in your apartment and you will see the many standards listed in the quotes!), an idea came to me. I’ll let you decide whether it's a joke or an idea worth exploring: I suggest creating a “100% personalised” certification for training and support, guaranteed without standards or certifications.

The idea is to stop doing only what the standards require, and to do what is really relevant for and with the person in the situation. It would complicate the task of obtaining funding for CPF lifelong learning and certification! But I was joking of course!

André Chauvet

https://www.francecompetences.fr/app/uploads/2023/09/NOTE_ETUDES_PRATIQUES-DACHAT.pdf

[1] Programme d’investissement dans les compétences. Cahier des charges  « Repérer et mobiliser les publics invisibles »https://paca.dreets.gouv.fr/sites/paca.dreets.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/aap_2021_reperage_des_invisibles_-_cahier_des_charges_dreets_paca.pdf