We have all studied in an organised setting at some point in our lives — if nowhere else, then certainly at a school desk. We prepared for end-of-topic tests, for final exams, for university examinations. Most of us have at least once left it to the last minute, choosing to cram, fuelled by the adrenaline of panic, on a “whatever happens, happens” basis. And if we have that experience, we may also remember that one read-through was usually not even enough to scrape a pass. So why has the idea taken root in corporate training that a one-hour e-learning course or a full-day workshop is enough to transfer knowledge?

Why do we treat learning as a single episode, sufficient on its own to reach the learning objectives we set?

In many cases we close the learning process just as it is getting started. The learner has read through the material, ideally met some practical examples and case studies, and at the end of the course can test — on a final set of questions — knowledge that is still in working memory rather than built into long-term memory; let us rather call it recall. If they reach the required percentage in the exam, the green tick appears next to their name; everything is done, the learning is complete. Written down like that, it sounds absurd, doesn’t it? And yet in many cases this is the reality.

The process does not only end here on the learner’s side, but on the training organiser’s side as well. It is very rare for the effectiveness of the learning, or the fulfilment of the learning objectives, to be measured afterwards — so we have no data at all on how effective the training was, or how much of the intended knowledge was actually retained. One reason we treat a course as a one-off event follows from exactly this: we have no data that would reveal that it does not lead to the goal. Nothing forces us to confront the question as long as the only tangible output of a course is a green tick on a statistics screen.

Responsibility passed on

Without saying so, we expect the learner to absorb the knowledge by magic, to practise, to test themselves, to apply it in practice and to keep deepening their understanding. We cannot shift the responsibility onto them entirely, spreading our hands and saying that everything was provided for them to learn. The problem with this is not only that it does not produce results, but also that it can put too much pressure on the learner. Just think how it must feel to still be unable to use a new process, policy or piece of software confidently after the training. The bolder ones would act on a “let’s see what happens” basis, while the rest would choose avoidance and stay with their old — or mistaken — habits.

What emerges clearly from the above is that we need a change of mindset in this area: we must see learning as a process, not as an event. There are of course international and domestic examples where this attitude has already taken root and works effectively. Below are a few ideas these organisations use, which are demonstrably effective.

What can we do to bring about change?

  • Modular training: Think in smaller units. Studying for half an hour a week over five weeks is far more effective than 2.5 hours in one go.
  • Far more opportunities to practise: Where the technology allows, generate practice blocks from large question banks, mixing several topics. Practice becomes more effective still if the question set is adaptive — raising the bar with harder questions as the learner performs.
  • Social learning methods: Encourage learners to ask questions, to think together and to share experience, for example on forums or the intranet.
  • Support for maintaining and deepening knowledge: For example refresher practice quizzes, weekly newsletters, short tips and practical notes sent as text messages, or expert videos.

Author: Mariann Tóth