Shifting notions about training and education

The modern model of education and training is based on the metaphor of pitcher and mug: how much can you pour into an empty mug in specific period of time? We assign credits and academic units based on amount poured in. An emerging postmodern model of training and education concerns not how much is “learned;” this model focuses instead on what is retained (3-6 months later) and what is transferred (“application of learning”). These shifting concerns are particularly important in leadership development (and other types of professional development)—in large part because the stakes are often very high. A substantial amount of money is often allocated to these programs, and the present or future leaders must spend valuable time in this program. Administrators at the top of the organization want to be assured that something will be retained from this expensive (money and time) program and that something will be applied.

How do we increase retention and transfer?

This is the logical next question. If retention and transfer are critical, then what will bring about increase in these two dimensions of training and education? There are several traditional means of increasing retention and transfer.

First, dispersed education and training programs can be offered. Programs can be divided into multiple sessions, so that there is time to try out a new concept or tool immediately after the session is completed and an occasion to report on and reflect about the learning from this testing  phase of the training or education program. Unfortunately, there are several logistical problems associated with this strategy—specifically with regard to scheduling of both participants and trainers/educators. Computers and e-learning makes this strategy more feasible; however, there often are large start-up costs associated with digitally-based training and education..

Second, we can supplement education/training with follow up activities, that remind the  participants of what they learned, as well as introduce new concepts. As in the case of the first strategy, there are logistical problems and the follow up activities can add additional costs. Once again, computers can help, though start up costs need to be kept in mind. The third strategy involves a different kind of follow up. We can check-up on people. We ask our participants to tell us what they are doing with their learning. This follow up monitoring can be peer-based (support and encouragement groups) or staff-based (supervision). This tends to be a control-based and deficit-based strategy, which may seem punitive to participants and can unravel all the good work (morale boosting) done during the initial development program.