5 myths about training

This article highlights 5 important neuromyths in the field of training and learning, challenging preconceived ideas using scientific evidence.

This article is based on the book written by Pedro De Bruyckere, Paul A. Kirschner and Casper Hulshof, Urban Myths about Learning and Education (2015) and More Urban Myths About Learning and Education (2019).

1. People do not have specific learning styles and do not correspond to a predefined personality type

Saying that people have a preferred learning strategy is a trivial observation and has no revolutionary impact. However:

• What we prefer is not necessarily good for us. No pedagogical advantage of a particular learning technique has ever been observed among people who claim it was their first choice. Self-selected teaching methods can even be unproductive.
• Most so-called learning styles correspond to one or more personality type theories. Despite the enormous (and lucrative) success of this idea in the private sector, the claim that people group into distinct categories has not been sufficiently proven.

This does not mean that some people will not learn a list of written words more easily, for example. But no one struggles to learn written words, except due to pathologies.

Does this mean that all learners are equal and should be treated in the same way?

Once again, no: what research says is simply that learning styles are not a theory of training and should be ignored for this purpose.

2. Our memory does not retain a perfect trace of our experiences

Remembering what the trainer said or what was learned in the past is an essential part of education. Memory is a complex mechanism.

According to most cognitive theories, memory is divided into:

• Sensory memory: when external stimuli reach one of our senses. Information is already heavily filtered at this stage, when we deliberately or unconsciously ignore incoming stimuli.
• Short-term memory or working memory: it is very limited in time and capacity (30 seconds for about seven elements). It helps organize and compare information.
• Long-term memory helps give meaning to knowledge. It has probably unlimited storage capacity and permanently retains what we truly learn.

Adults claiming to have a “photographic memory” while having been rigorously tested is a controversial subject. In general, human memory is full of flaws:

• Our minds are not empty containers waiting to be filled with knowledge provided by experts. Memory reconstructs information according to what fits our schemas.
• Perception is distorted by our biases. Our knowledge determines our experience, not the other way around.

Memory is personal and changes over time. We are what we forget.

3. Learners are not in a state of “brain death” during passive training sessions

One of the urban legends spread even by renowned trainers and professors is that learners’ brain activity during lecture-based training is the same as when they watch television: simply dead. It turns out that the cited study does not measure brain activity, but rather electrodermal activity (that is, electrical activity recorded at the surface of the skin). Even worse, this measurement was carried out on a single person, invalidating any meaningful conclusion about a general population.

That said, lecture-based training plays a key role in learning, and is sometimes very effective. But most of the time, it causes the audience’s attention to drift. Learners with the least prior knowledge and who have fewer reference points (that is, those who most need the benefits of training) are unfortunately the first victims of this effect. Maintaining learners’ interest and appeal is perhaps the greatest challenge for a teacher.

Quizzes during training sessions are known to increase their effectiveness, as they rely on well-known mechanisms such as the testing effect and retrieval practice. Quizzes also reduce the performance gap between learners from different socioeconomic backgrounds by 50%.

4. More training time does not automatically lead to more learning

Sometimes, simplistic ideas are applied to training and become official recommendations. Decision-makers may base their choices on indicators that do not allow causality to be identified.

In this case, correlations between learning and hours spent in training certainly exist, but no other link is known. Besides the fact that what happens during the additional hours is part of the equation, increasing training time does not benefit everyone in the same way. Learners with greater social capital benefit from their additional background and stimuli in their personal lives. The only way to compensate for this gap seems to be to allocate additional resources to learners who specifically need them.

Moreover, we emphasize once again that time spent outside the training session is beneficial to the learning process. Indeed,

• regular breaks during training,
• spaced practice and repetition,
• physical activity during free time,

sufficient sleep,

all lead to better learning.

5. Trainers make a difference, but they are not the only factor.

It is particularly difficult to study the factors that contribute or not to learning, because all factors influence each other in very diverse ways. But claiming that the trainer has the greatest impact on learners (30% being even an overestimation) is certainly a myth.

There are indeed too many things beyond a teacher’s control:

• state policies, learners’ genetic heritage, their personal situation.

However, this does not justify trainers losing hope or ceasing to do their best. Their impact is certainly positive.

Expert trainers make a difference when they are able to:

• Set appropriate goals to motivate learners,
• Have in-depth knowledge of their field and of how people learn, by providing well-organized training and making connections with other disciplines or learners’ prior knowledge.
• Monitor more demanding learners and provide appropriate feedback.