It occurred to me that there is a lot of pretense surrounding how even basic learning works.

Being old, when we went to school, rote memory comprised the bulk of our “learning”. When there were detours away from rote learning, teachers simply tended to leave out bits of detail in order to help the students “think.” Instead of thinking, this tended to leave the lessons vague and required the students to spend much more time learning the same rote things. Still, we worked things out, managed to get a half-decent basic education and moved on to being The Learning Guys.

Of course, there are the fanatical opponents to rote memory. They argue that rote memory is useless, and it is all about the synthesis of information. An recent example of this is the few decades of “whole language” education in our school systems. This approach is pushed by “holism” ideologues who deemphasized anything that wasn’t seen as contributing directly to developing meaning, such as phonetics, spelling, grammar, etc.

To me, this approach obviously didn’t work as we are left with a couple generations of kids that can barely read/write their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone enter university with the ability to express their thoughts or collaborate in the global academic community.

It seems obvious, but it is impossible to create meaning out of nothing. Shocking statement, I know… There has to be some foundation from which to base higher forms of learning. The teacher’s mission here is to differentiate the base knowledge for each area being taught and not be afraid to help the student with the rote memory task. This rote memory understanding of the material forms the basis on which the more rewarding analysis and synthesis tasks can be built.

When teaching a body of knowledge, select the material that lends itself to analysis and then admit the rest of the material is rote memory and teach it as such. There is no shame in this, and your students will thank you!

Comments(1)

Rumors that the training course is dead have been circulating for the past few months. Bloggers everywhere speculate that the cause of death was high cost combined with poor results.

Jay Cross says:
“Upon close inspection, you find that courses themselves are not that effective. Only 10 percent to 15 percent of what is taught in a course transfers to the job. Courses have a miserable track record when it comes to changing behavior. The most common way of learning one’s job comes not from taking a course but from asking someone.”

But is there a possibility that these rumors about the death of the course have been greatly exaggerated?

I still see the course everywhere. Many of my clients still invest in classroom based learning solutions (courses, presentations, conferences etc.), and there is still a strong belief that much can be accomplished when you bring a group of people together in a room with a skilled facilitator.

Formal learning events seem especially appropriate to foundational learning (beginner’s courses, 101’s etc.), when learners are at the same starting point with the material (they know nothing or little).

Formal learning events also work well for executive leadership development initiatives. A formal course format forces busy executives to take some time away from work, and gives them a chance to network, brainstorm and form communities.

But the role of the course is changing. Most of my clients are moving away from isolated learning events (courses, conferences etc.) and moving towards an integrated blended learning program. The time spent in the classroom is being greatly reduced, while self service learning options are being added. There is also a strong trend towards providing opportunities to collaborate with and learn from colleagues both formally and informally. Learning is becoming more closely connected with work, and learning programs are becoming more personalized.

Both formal and informal. Perhaps the most effective learning programs are a combination of formal and informal learning. We can use formal learning to build the foundation; and use informal learning to contextualize and extend the foundational learning experience.

What do you think?
This question goes out to learning designers and consultants everywhere. In this era of Learning 2.0 (highly contextualized, personalized, just-in-time, workflow, on demand, self service, informal, community), what role does the training course play in an organizations training and development initiatives? Is the structured course still relevant or is it an endangered species?

Comments(1)