Formal training is not broken. In many cases, especially for behaviour-led learning, it remains one of the most effective tools L&D has. The problem arises when learning designed for protected attention is delivered into environments that cannot provide it. This blog explores why course-centric digital learning is increasingly misaligned with the flow of work, and why the issue is less about format and more about attention conditions.

Why attention conditions matter

Some of the most effective learning experiences deliberately remove people from their day-to-day work. Face-to-face training does this well. It creates space, reduces distraction and allows people to focus on reflection, discussion and behavioural change.

That separation is not a weakness. It is often the reason the learning works.

The challenge is that much digital learning is designed with the same expectations of attention, without the same ability to protect it.

How work actually happens now

For most employees, work is fragmented and interruption-heavy. People move constantly between meetings, messages, systems and decisions. Even when learning time is allocated, it competes with notifications, deadlines and live issues.

In this context, sustained attention is rare. Focus happens in short bursts, often under pressure. Yet much digital learning still assumes learners can step away, concentrate fully and return later to apply what they’ve learned.

That assumption no longer reflects reality.

The assumptions behind course-centric digital learning

Course-centric learning, whether classroom-based or digital, assumes continuity. It assumes that value comes from completing a single, coherent experience from start to finish.

In face-to-face environments, those assumptions are often valid. The environment supports them. In digital environments, they frequently are not. Learning is delivered into the flow of work, but designed as if it sits outside it.

When learning cannot tolerate interruption, it becomes fragile.

Where friction appears

This mismatch shows up as friction rather than outright failure.

Learners are pulled away from tasks to complete modules. They are asked to remember information for later application, often without reinforcement. Success is measured by completion rather than usefulness.

The result is not rejection of learning, but quiet resistance. People comply, but they rush. They skim. They treat learning as something to get through rather than something to use.

Why this isn’t an argument against formal training

It’s important to be clear about what this critique is not.

This is not a rejection of face-to-face learning. For behaviour change, leadership development and complex interpersonal skills, removing people from work remains one of the most effective design choices available.

The issue is not that learning steps away from work. The issue is expecting learning delivered inside work to behave as if it has stepped outside it.

Why more content doesn’t fix the problem

Faced with time pressure, many organisations respond by creating more content, breaking it into smaller pieces, or producing it faster using AI.

On its own, this doesn’t solve the underlying issue. Faster or smaller content still competes with work if it assumes attention that isn’t available. AI can accelerate production, but it cannot change the conditions in which learning is consumed.

The core problem is not volume or speed. It is misaligned design assumptions.

Learning in the flow of work exposes the gap

The growing interest in learning in the flow of work reflects this tension.

The phrase points to a simple reality. Some learning outcomes require protected attention. Others require timely support. Problems arise when these are treated as interchangeable.

Long learning is not the enemy. Learning that assumes uninterrupted time in a distracted environment is.

What this sets up

This blog is a diagnosis, not a prescription. It names why course-centric digital learning often struggles, without undermining the value of formal training where it is genuinely effective.

In the next blog, we explore how learning can be deliberately designed to work in the flow of work, and how L&D can make clearer decisions about when to step people out of work and when to support them within it.

FAQs: Course-centric learning and attention

Is face-to-face training still effective?

Yes. Especially for behaviour-led learning, face-to-face training works because it creates protected attention and reduces distraction.

Why does digital learning struggle more than classroom learning?

Because digital learning competes with live work and cannot control the learning environment in the same way.

Is the problem course length?

No. The issue is whether learning can tolerate interruption and be resumed meaningfully.

Does AI solve attention problems in learning?

No. AI can speed up content creation, but it doesn’t change the conditions in which learning is consumed.