The Great Education Conspiracy

Here’s a funny thing: when you ask people what kind of learning they think is most effective they say ‘classroom training’. Even millennials.

They are wrong (at least if we think of learning as knowledge transfer - see here) but why are they wrong?

Probably they are victims of the ‘attribute substitution’ effect in which people asked a complex question ‘Which learning technique is more effective?’ respond with an answer to a simpler question that they substitute ‘Which type of learning do you enjoy more?’

Neither classroom nor e-learning are very effective at transferring knowledge, but people enjoy classroom training more. Now we’re getting somewhere. So why do they enjoy it more?

Anyone who has done much classroom teaching is well aware that people forget almost all the information they are presented with. But practitioners are canny – they intuitively know how things really work: they know people are really there for the experience – for the chance to ‘network’ (socialise), have some fun, talk about things, try some things out. So the practitioners quietly do ‘experience design’ under the cover of ‘knowledge transfer’ in order to get the level 1 evaluations where they ought to be. So what’s the problem?

Sadly, because the industry labours under the myth of ‘learning as knowledge transfer’ or ‘curricula’, the poor practitioners feel compelled to subject people to a ‘content dump’ of information and sometimes a token test in order to preserve the illusion that this is the real return on the investment (test scores, certificates etc.) – which largely spoils the learning experience for delegates as they wade through screen after screen of drivel, desperately holding out for the next coffee-break, challenge or meaningful activity.

E-learning modules are like this, just without the socialising. Or the fun. You don’t learn anything AND the experience sucks (which hasn't stopped respected educational institutions aggressively converting their rich experiences into lifeless e-learning in a desperate bid for cash).

All these problems – problems in education - stem from not really understanding how learning works. Classroom training should be experience design. What’s an experience? Anything with affective significance. This includes: good conversations, powerful stories, immersive activities, challenges, simulations, personal feedback – these are the real tools of learning. These are what people remember. Because learning is determined by affective context. A single comment can last a lifetime – if it’s something you really care about.

But in that case what do we do with all the information? Make it into a resource. If it’s information the chances are people aren’t going to remember it – period (people aren’t designed to memorise information devoid of affective significance). So make it available at the point of need.

‘Knowledge transfer’ as a model of learning is always a bit like me asking you to memorise Pi to 100 places – it’s hard to do because you’re not designed to learn that way, and it’s pretty pointless once you can look it up. And you forget it quickly. I use the London underground a couple of times a day – I barely recall a single route.

Instead, give people the chance to experience things, and learn from those experiences – that’s how learning works.

But what will we measure if we don’t have a test? Call me crazy, but how about we measure the impact on performance?