Harold D. Stolovitch and Erica Keeps dedicate an entire chapter in their book Telling Ain't Training to dispelling myths about learning. I’ve listed a few of these myths and added some additional thoughts about each.
1. Performance experts make the best trainers.
We’ve all known experts who have had a difficult time explaining the very thing they know how to do so well. Part of becoming an expert entails consolidating what we know. This however can cause an expert to skip over the details. And the details are important to new learners.
Instructing on the other hand is really more about having a concern or understanding of where your learners are at rather than simply imparting what you know. Learners, of course, must also be motivated to learn. So the ability to relate to and engage your learners is an important part of the process.
As individuals, our instinct is always to protect and promote ourselves within our own environment. So it is not surprising that when placed in front of an audience and handed the microphone we are not tempted to first establish ourselves by telling everything we know. But good trainers are confident enough in what they know, to stop, ask questions, and listen.
I met a fellow the other day over lunch that was very knowledgeable on many different subjects. He did not hesitate to tell you all he knew, however, as soon as the conversation shifted to another speaker, his head turned from the table, his eyes wondering across the room, as if it was absolute torture for him to listen to another speaker for even a single moment. Unfortunately, as it turns out, this self absorbed individual was, yes, you guessed it, a teacher.
2. People process information differently, so it is important to determine individual learning preferences and incorporate these into your teaching style.
This is sort of true. For example some of us prefer to process information delivered to us through our hearing verses received visually. Some enjoy processing data that is delivered to us sequentially, or in small bits rather than having to engage in complex reasoning or problem solving. It would be difficult however in a classroom setting to determine individual learning preferences, and impossible to tailor a program that would meet and match each individual's learning style. Our best alternative is to ensure that we offer a sort of mixed bag and incorporate many different learning methods to help people to assimilate the learning.
3. The more enjoyable the instruction the greater the level of learning achieved.
You’d think a guy like me, who develops training games, would really come down on the side of this particular myth. It turns out however that enjoyment in and of itself does not directly correlate to better learning. Learning is hard work and "effort in" naturally correlates to positive results.
Trainers often get rave reviews when the training is made fun. Participants comment that the class was great because they enjoyed the review game at the end of the class, but they really did not learn much. Often our customers are looking for something that will "spice up" the learning experience. They may have tried a game at one time or another and found their class loved it. Games are fun, but if not done correctly, can be tantamount to tossing the baby out with the bath water.
It is great to play a game and have your group energized as they answer true/false and multiple choice questions to try and win. But imagine using these moments when people become energized and interested to inject some additional learning. To learn you need first to be attentive. Games are great attention grabbers. I am simply suggesting stopping the game for a moment and giving learners an opportunity to think about, discuss, and explore the learning. We have tried to design games that allow trainers to train while playing the game. In most TGI games after the question is asked or answered the trainer has the opportunity to expound on the topic by introducing additional information (perhaps a mini- PowerPoint presentation) or a training exercise. In this way the game can be used to deliver new information rather than just a review piece. The process of capturing a participant’s attention and then providing them a means of assimilating the information is key to successful learning.
I thought I might continue with one of the training myths that Keeps and Stolovich point to in Telling Ain't Training. One myth, especially prevalent in our fast moving, highly technical society is: "All other things being equal media provides a major difference in learning effectiveness." In 1913, Thomas Edison predicted the demise of traditional teaching with the advent of "Moving Pictures". In the 1960s, educators believed television would usher in a new and revolutionary way to teach and train. Then in the 1980s, we became convinced that computers would hold the key to better, faster and quicker ways to train. All these things have in their own way added to our ability to train, however the overall effectiveness of our training has not really improved with the addition of the latest technologies. Now we have the internet, literally all the knowledge in the World availed to us. Companies have their own LMS or Learning Management Systems which are being hailed as the latest and greatest way to "train up" your organization. Ideally training via the web can provide learners an interactive learning experience by offering discussion forums, online chartrooms, and automated multiple choice quizzes and questionnaires, but unfortunately many such systems are simply glorified document repositories. The scary part is that they are so cost effective. Training has always been most venerable to the corporate bottom line, and so the organization may be too willing to settle for a flashy, new, economical but really not very effective training delivery method.
I can recall when voice mail was first introduced. I remember thinking to myself what a wonderful advancement. Communicating, I believed, would be as easy as just dialing and dropping a message. Every one would be "In the loop". My feeling was that my company would certainly be so much more productive. Years later however, with voice mail firmly entrenched in my organization, it appeared as if the benefits I fully expected were never realized. In fact, I, as many do, don´t really like voice mail today. It seems we now never get to speak to a real person and the time spent listening to meaningless messages negates any of the promised benefits...
It is really not the fault of technology but our fault. Because even if external information delivery systems have changed, we have not! We pretty much learn the same way we did thousands of years ago. I am a bit annoyed with companies that force employees to get on-line and wade through immense amounts of company policy and procedure, effectively forcing huge amounts of rote memorization just so they might stamp another one "TRAINED".
People need to be motivated to learn. Trainers play an important role here. Training is an art as well as a science. You need to capture the learner´s attention. Having someone read a computer screen is naturally about as effective as having them read a book (the old fashioned information delivery system). Training retention is still going to be about the same: 5 – 10 percent. Our brains are extremely efficient information filters. We are constantly being bombarded with new sensory stimuli, and our very survival depends on us paying attention to the ones we determine are important and disregarding the rest. If you think about it, it is not a problem of providing more information, but more a concern with presenting the information so that it might be assimilated into the learner´s knowledge base.
This is why it is important to consider multi-sensory training methods, right and left brain teaching techniques, collaborative learning environments, and things that will help the learner stay focused (attending), intellectually engaged (thinking) and learn. Plainly said, information availability is not an adequate substitute for good instructional design.
Simply providing the information is not going to induce learning. People need to be motivated to learn. I'd put my money on the motivated individual working in the local library building more synapses than the unmotivated Harvard student. Trainers need to engage students, to interest them and then challenge them to learn. It is no wonder that bigger, better, and more technically advanced media information delivery systems have not translated into more effective learning. |
