The current situation
For far too long, when an expert is asked to provide training on an XY subject, it's a mandate, a request, an order. But... why do we want such training? To alleviate what problem? Who is the target audience? How will it improve the work performance of the target clientele? What learning objective will alleviate the problem? These fundamental questions are rarely answered.
So, most of the time, the expert is left to his or her own devices, and begins his or her work by drawing up a table of contents. It's the only way he or she knows to put all his or her theoretical knowledge in order. The word is out: the expert's theoretical knowledge!
And when it comes to the question of "how to teach", the answer comes naturally: I'm going to give a presentation with lots of questions and little quizzes! From then on, the die is cast: you start with a table of contents of theoretical knowledge, which becomes a presentation to be given in front of a group. The hope is that this will alleviate the problem, which is almost always operational. It's a bit like thinking that a TedTalk on plumbing will help you fix your water leak.
You've really hit the wrong nail on the head...
Yet the solution has been known for 40 years...
For over 40 years, researchers1 have been telling us that we need to analyze the work situation, describe the tasks workers have to perform, and train them to do these tasks as efficiently as possible. It's logical and proven. Have we made any progress in this direction?
Yes, we're seeing progress among the "insiders", those who are interested in andragogy, who have studied in the field and who are sensitive to the need for effective training. But this task-centered approach doesn't seem to percolate down to the experts, who continue to privilege theoretical knowledge (so-called declarative knowledge) to the detriment of the task (procedural knowledge). And all the while, HR consultants are invariably looking for training courses that will help their teams work better! How do we get out of this endless loop?
In 2024, we can't even manage to create, on a large scale, training focused on the "How" (plugging the water leak), which would replace all that training based on the "What" (plumbing)! Progress is slow, too slow, despite the results of research and the recommendations of andragogy specialists.
Given the ineffectiveness of many corporate interventions, we should, at the very least, question two points:
1/ Knowledge selection methods.
2/ Dissemination methods.
All too often, theoretical knowledge is sprayed into a classroom, and we hope it produces results! This is what inspired Mr. David Merrill's rather lapidary comment: "Spray and pray".
And the skills of the future?
It's already quite an exercise to move from training based on declarative knowledge (the What) to training based on procedural knowledge (the How), and now we want to develop the skills of the future? It's going to take a lot of energy and effort to get there.
There are, however, some possible solutions, some broad principles that could be put in place:
- Accepting reality: a skill will never be developed by listening to an expert describe it. A skill is a highly complex cognitive object that takes years to develop, install and refine. Would you like to be operated on by a surgeon who has just completed an intense, theoretical training course?
- Formulate clear, operational learning objectives, which have been written to meet the organization's needs and which should then structure the learning activities to be designed.
- Coach the experts, and I'll put it bluntly, remind them that as strong as they are in their field of expertise, they need help in andragogy.
- Train and hire andragogists and andragogical engineering specialists to work in tandem with the experts.
- Ensure strong management commitment and ongoing support to initiate this paradigm shift. Management must recognize that a training activity requires supervision: upstream, the activity must be prepared and the most promising learning solutions selected, and downstream, follow-up must be carried out to anchor new learning in work processes.
- Another major effort on the part of management is to recognize that, although the pace of work is getting faster and faster, our brains are still slow learners and it takes time for knowledge to take hold. And skills take even longer!
If we follow these six principles, we'll really have learning events that make a difference. Those who take part will be able to develop skills or acquire abilities not only for their own professional development, but also to improve their company's performance.
And that's how we'll finally make a difference and be effective in our training activities, whether synchronous or asynchronous, face-to-face or remote.
I can't help but dream about it.
To find out more :
Synchronous training: designing engaging learning environments