There is an amusing bit in this where he describes a training session he conducted. You need to start off by knowing that he doesn’t think very much of training sessions – and thinks they are mostly a waste of time. Before the lecture type session, he has stuck bananas under some people’s chairs. As he is going along he asks people to feel under their chairs and those who have bananas to come up to the stage. They do, and he gets them to peel and eat the bananas in sync with each other. Not the sort of thing you might expect at a training session, I guess. After this is all over, he tells the audience that soon all they would be able to remember of the session – and the conference too – was the banana eating. And that, pretty much, is the point of this book.
Not that I’m saying you shouldn’t bother reading this book – you really should. His point is that most of what passes for education isn’t really about learning. How we learn and how we go about educating people are two quite different things. Education is mostly about trying to stuff information into unreceptive heads. As the author says, it is a bit ironic that he ended up a lecturer at a university, because for the most part he was bored out of his mind at school. He says that education is mostly about getting a piece of paper that then allows you to get a job where you actually do some learning – if you are lucky. He quotes that line from Maya Angelou about people forgetting what you say or do, but never forgetting how you made them feel. A lot of this is about the part emotions play in learning. And the fact that we mostly learn stories, since stories are most likely to make us feel.
He sees most education as being what he calls ‘content dumping’. And this is also true of most workplace training. How do we give learners all of the content they might one day need to do things they might one day need to do? And there is the problem. Since the learners have no idea what they might one day need to know and because they have been through endless content dumping education before, they are unlikely to retain any of what they are being told. You can ‘fix’ this by giving them the threat of there being an exam at the end. This is highly effective in getting people to remember stuff right up to five minutes after the exam. Otherwise, it is virtually a complete waste of time.
So, is there a better way? He definitely thinks there is. He talks about a range of courses where people are expected to work together to solve real life problems. In these problems they have to learn how to firstly work together, but also to learn what they don’t know. And since the learning is situated in what they will do in real life, they are not only more motivated to engage, but they are not learning an endless dump of content, but rather things that are to the point of what they need to learn. This isn’t about dropping them in the middle of a war zone and seeing if they can make it out alive – as a kind of Squid Game, where you are given no assistance at all. Rather, you are given just enough assistance so that you don’t end up stuck, but not enough that you get frustrated and give up. That is, you learn the way you do in real life – tackling real life problems and getting assistance when you need it, but not so much assistance that you let the teacher do the work for you.
This reminded me of so many training sessions I’d been through. In one we were shown how to modify some base level computer program that managed our corporate server. The person running the course asked me why I wasn’t doing the task he had set me. I told him that if my organisation was stupid enough to get me to do this task – when they had a perfectly well functioning IT department – they must be even stupider than I generally gave them credit for. There was literally zero chance I was ever going to do what he was teaching me to do – and it wasn’t even something I would ever want to do.
In another training workshop I attended, we were asked to organise a deck of cards from ace to king. Someone had gone the opposite way. We had to do all this in a very short amount of time and hand the cards back to the trainer. The person who had stuffed up the exercise simply put the bottom card on the top of the deck and handed up them. One card was in the right order – every other card not. I learned more from that than I was expecting – that is, never work with that person if I needed things to be ‘right’.
Again, this is the author’s point. Too much of what we ‘learn’ is so superficial and so tangential to our real lives, we hardly care what we do, as long as it mostly looks sort of right.
He has nice things to say about a book I read years ago called The Checklist Manifesto. And since I’ve forgotten most of the book, it reinforces this guy’s point to say what I do remember of it – that is, that using checklists was applied in hospitals and it had a huge impact on reducing injuries and deaths from forgetting to do things. This is great if what you are doing is a well-documented procedure, probably less so if it is something you need to be creative in – or as Hannah Arendt might say, good for labour – which is repetitive and almost mindless, but not so good for work, which requires close concentration and thinking on your feet.
His point is that different genres of ‘useful’ materials to help us do what we want to do have different purposes and those should be developed to match what people are likely to want to do with them. So, if it is a step-by-step procedure, perhaps a step-by-step guide is the best thing. If it is something that might involve a tricky manipulation, perhaps a video would be best. But we have all experienced watching a how-to video on YouTube where the person gives you their life history before they show you how to change a washer. The desire to scream at them, ‘Just show me!!!’ is overwhelming.
He also makes the point that too few training sessions begin by asking what those being trained want to know. Admittedly, sometimes they might not know what they need to know – but as is made clear repeatedly throughout this, we are much more likely to learn things we feel we need to know and that we can put into practice than stuff we might possibly need at some undefined time in the future.
The bottom line being that learning ought to be about changing behaviour – and if you are going to do that, then you basically need to know what behaviour is normal now, and what you want to change that behaviour to. That so little of what we ‘learn’ is like that – again, being much more likely to be a content bump instead – is a deeply curious fact about our world. I really enjoyed this book.