It’s about time. Someone has
finally noticed that the training industry is failing at its job:
Learning and development failing to deliver for two-thirds
of UK organisations, study finds
There is nothing new here of
course. In 1989 when I started the Institute for the Learning Sciences (ILS),
our mission was primarily to fix the mess that training had become. Our first
sponsor was Andersen Consulting (now Accenture). Their problem was simple
enough. Their training was delivered primarily through what they called FGBs.
(You figure out what the F stood for, the GB part was Green Books.) These
training manuals told you everything you needed to know in order to work at
Andersen. Readings were followed by multiple choice tests and other exercises.
Other companies soon asked ILS for help and we saw the same problems every
time:
1. Their training was deadly dull
2. Their training was
perfunctory (you just took it so a box could be checked that you had completed
it)
3. No new skills were learned
or practiced
4. The learning methodology was
reading
At
ILS we able to build simulations, using Goal Based Scenarios, that allowed
trainees to practice the skills they were trying to learn, within a fictional
scenario that was engaging.
We
were doing fine, more and more companies were signing up, and then something
terrible happened: The WEB.
The
web made it possible for training departments to spend much less money and yet
appear as if they were doing something new and modern. Eventually training on
the Web got to be called e-learning, but what was meant by e-learning was the
FGBs plus cute pictures and animations.
Now
let’s look at what the UK’s Training Magazine has found:
1. Only 33 per cent of those involved in designing and
delivering L&D said it had a lasting impact on their people or
organisation.
2. Nearly half (49 per cent) said their L&D function
could do more to improve its effectiveness.
3. Despite the growing popularity of e-learning,
practitioners have reservations around its effectiveness in delivering lasting
improvement in knowledge and skills.
4. Less than one in ten rated webinars, audio learning or
online virtual learning as effective and only 12 per cent said mobile learning
packages for smartphones or tablets were effective.
5. Action learning was rated as the most effective L&D
practice whether this was through on- the-job training (69 per cent),
coaching-based learning (57 per cent), business simulations (43 per cent) or
computer-based games (38 per cent).
So
e-learning doesn’t work? Shocker. I think I said that here:
Schank:
"El 'e-learning' actual es la misma basura, pero en diferente sitio"
What
I said was: “e-learning is the same garbage just in a new medium.”
E-learning
is dead and good riddance. MOOCs aren’t dead yet, but they soon will be. They both
have the same fatal flaw: an attempt to do exactly what was done before, but in
a new medium: the computer.
What
has been done before in education at all levels has been a lot of telling,
followed by quizzes, to see if a student/trainee can temporarily memorize what
they just read or heard.
The
real question in learning is how to actually attain new abilities. For this
there is only one answer: PRACTICE.
The
computer should be used to make practice realistic and engaging, with the
possibility of failing and being helped to see things in a new way after
failing. The practice should be fun, interesting, exciting, challenging --- not
boring and perfunctory. Or to re-consider my four points above:
1. The training should be exciting and challenging.
2. The training should be a
natural part of one’s job.
3. New skills must be learned and
practiced.
4. The learning methodology must
be doing.
Enough
with e-learning. It was always simply an attempt to go back to doing training the
way it had been done in the FGBs. Just like MOOCs are more boring lectures
masquerading as something new and hi-tech.
There
are new things to do in education and training. We could do them. Or if we want
to go back to old methods, go back even further to apprenticeships. Those actually
worked.
1 comment:
Hey Roger!
I have a ton of respect for you, your work, and your perspective. But I think you focused on one thing here and are making a generalization that wasn't explicit in the article you're replying to.
L&D is failing in many places for many reasons. It's not *just* elearning that's contributing to that failure. And *all* elearning is not a failure. L&D staffs in *many* organizations suffer from a focus on information and not on skills. We see this both in the classrooms and in self-paced turds we push around with URLs. All of the same "load 'em up and dip 'em in" mindset we've seen for the decades before elearning promised to make all of this "wrong stuff" cheaper and more efficient.
Elearning, in the many ways it is defined, isn't the failure. The mindset of channeled information and the assumption that putting content on a conveyer belt will magically produce skills is the failure.
I really do like the stuff you have to give and I love your blunt approach. But sometimes, to be honest, it comes across as "I'm doing it right and everyone else is doing it wrong." And that's not true. It's not even intellectually honest.
Be well.
Post a Comment