Learning: Not A One-Time Event

The upshot of all this is that spaced out intervals of 
study reinforces learning and learned practices.

Learning in general, and eLearning in particular are largely regarded as a onetime events in most organizational settings today. The ever increasing pace of change, the avalanche of information, the increased activity within any given job responsibility have created a need to develop an ever-green strategy for learning within an organization.

The evergreen approach to learning should result in a lifelong process of learning within an organization that periodically reinforces existing information, along with new concepts and skills that relate to a particular topic. Yes…it does demand additional resources and funding to dedicate learning as a core concept within an organization. This has not been particularly high on the list of budget items for most organizations. 

Why do I make a case for an evergreen approach? - well because through my experience in developing eLearning for various organizations over the past 25 years I have found that most if not all organizations I have worked with have tended to look at developing learning and eLearning on a project by project basis? While costs have not increased dramatically, the pace of change, the scope of content has – which leaves me wondering why new and more strategic approach to learning have not been implemented.

Common sense tells us we are not doing a very good at creating effective learning environments. When I refer to this I am referring to learning outside the traditional school system. Research tells us that spaced learning produces superior test scores. The question becomes for developing any learning strategy, “What is the typical interval of spaced learning that produces good storage and retrieval strength” (see my article on How We Learn). There is no real handbook or definitive data on this but there is some research that provides a pretty reliable guide to how we can space eLearning and learning in general to improve retention, comprehension and application.

In 2008, a research team led by Melony Wiseheart a psychologist at York University, Toronto and Harold Pashler, a psychologist at the University of California, San Diego, conducted a large study that provided the first good answer to this question. The book “How We Learn” explains that the team enrolled 1354 people from all ages from across the US. The team had them study 32 obscure facts. The participants studied the facts at different intervals –some only 10 minutes apart and others as much as 6 months apart. In total there were 26 different study intervals. The researchers also varied the timing of the final exam.

The study produced an optimal interval chart to help us better understand the relationship between spaced learning and remembering what you have learned.  

Time To Test	First Study Interval
Week	1-2 days
1 Month	1 week
3 Months	2 weeks
6 Months	3 weeks
1 Year	1 month

The further away the exam the more the time you have to prepare - the larger the optimal between sessions one and two. This study included a test to validate the learning process. In most organizational learning (as opposed to traditional school learning) and even eLearning where testing is relatively easy, testing is not always a part of the process.

The upshot of all this is that spaced out intervals of study reinforces learning and learned practices in eLearning. ELearning is usually implemented as a one off and there is rarely follow up through eLearning or other learning methods. This results in poor adoption of learned skills or practices.

In a well-designed “evergreen learning approach” the reintroduction of concepts will help under-write a spaced out study process creating a continuum of learning. This will result in the better application of learned skills and processes, while exposing the learner to new information. In a planned approach to learning this might include spaced out eLearning programs where existing concepts are reexamined and new or revised content is added to create depth of knowledge. Testing is also an important part of the process to ensure that learners take the process as seriously as those who have planned out the learning program.

Finally, based on the previous article “How We Learn” - using different delivery methods of knowledge will help improve “storage and retrieval strength.” For example you may utilize eLearning as a core component, offering  versions of the same eLearning modules with new questions, which can then reinforce with scheduled events, webinars, activities, and print based elements throughout a one year learning cycle. Often, these are not costly; they just demand planning an evergreen approach to learning.

E-Learning – Confused on Many Levels

E-Learning has long been misunderstood and it continues to be confused on many levels. This confusion stems from a broad swath of learning solutions having collided with the introduction of technology and the internet. Many of the E-Learning solutions developed as a result of this collision are driven by cost and not effectiveness. We have recently had the opportunity to respond to many E-Learning RFPs and we are always surprised that the balance of these RFP’s deal with technical parameters and infrastructure and not the learning objectives, instructional design, the interactivity of the content or the diverse makeup of the learners. Today, the technical delivery of E-Learning is relatively easy to implement, band width considerations are virtually non-existent even in remote rural settings and there are plenty of well-designed, easy to use, scalable, non-proprietary E-Learning development platforms.

So then the question has to be asked, if the technology exists, and is easily implemented, why are most E-Learning initiatives are either boring, ineffective or bogged down in technical issues? Well, to truly understand this we have to take step back and look at the evolution of E-Learning and the effect that the traditional learning process has had on E-Learning. In short, the technology is mature but the process and our ideas framing E-Learning development are relics of the past. Administrators who fund and develop E-Learning projects apply a linear process to E-Learning to help manage costs, schedule project milestones and ensure the efficacy of the content. Managing E-Learning like traditional training, often results in a finished E-Learning product that looks like traditional training, delivered in a much more robust interactive domain. Typically, in such a process the content has not realized the value and benefit of a mature interactive process, such as the inclusion of selective video, branching based on pre-test and post test questions or quizzes, access to multi-layered depth of content, etc. 

A well developed E-Learning solution includes subject matter experts, a diverse and creative instructional design team that is experienced in the production of media in all forms, including simulations, animation, video and interactive design. A well designed E-Learning module or comprehensive curriculum can last indefinitely since, like annually updated university text Books, E-Learning modules undergo a review for updates and efficacy on an annualized basis. A well designed E-Learning program has the power to change behaviour, enhance comprehension and create incentive for people to value and engage in lifelong learning.

More confusion reigns when  many flavours of, what I would call,  less than ideal interactive learning are slapped with the moniker of E-Learning. E-Learning means different things to different sectors of the economy. The most common expression of E-Learning is often cited when discussing colleges and universities. It offers instructor led learning with complementary opportunities for learning through assigned activities, reading activities or instructor designed PowerPoint presentations. While using the interactive medium, it remains a lecture style presentation best suited to students rather than adults. The main learning still takes place in an interactive live session with the instructor and the final test and/or interim tests are still delivered on campus or proctored through associated organizations that must meet Government educational guidelines. It’s called E-Learning but I prefer the term Distance Learning since the interaction is not under the control of the learner.

Organizations offer yet another watered down version of E-Learning through the use of Webinars; incorporating the use of video (but usually not), a guest speaker and a PowerPoint presentation. This is recorded and posted on a web site as E-Learning. These have the feel of warmed up left-over’s. Often in these examples the most important ingredient not mentioned is the learner, how are they represented in the content, the objectives and (what I like to call) the engagement level?  The engagement level is driven by our need for entertainment, distraction and love affair with media on the internet and on television. Good teachers and instructors know and understand this and use this in traditional learning to provide insight, humour, gravity and life experiences to the learning process to make learning unpredictable and enjoyable.  

The final flavor is the corporate E-Learning – usually designed to teach us mandatory repetitive information. Most are designed as interactive web pages and even real interactive E-Learning with plenty of interactive control but the content is often text heavy, lacks any engagement and the learning outcomes are not substantiated.  The biggest drawback is the poor engagement level.

We’ve all been to school and understand the nature of boring learning; the difference is that we are forced to participate as students while we must have engaged to learn as adults. Somehow this lesson is lost when developing E-Learning, perhaps because of cost, our lack of understanding of the E-Learning medium or the need to use traditional methods to manage a very untraditional medium and its potential.