Where is training technology headed?

The future is such an uncertain place, but looking at some current trends can shed some light as to where the next innovation will lead.  Technology is more than just a simple tool, it would seem technology has shaped the course of human history, often pushing us in directions that we had not anticipated we would go as we had no concept of the possibilities that technology could open for us.  There is, however, one media that consistently provides and insight into the future that is often overlooked as a media of fantasy and entertainment; that is, movies, television, and books. 

There are examples throughout history in the works of Jules Verne, Arthur C. Clarke, H.G. Wells, E.M. Forster, Ray Bradbury, Gene Roddenberry, and to a disturbing extent George Orwell.  It is my guess that each of these artists looked not at the trends of technology; rather, the wants and desires of mankind to predict where we would expend our efforts to create the necessary technology to bring their predictions to life.  It is from this perspective, I believe, that we can envision where the future is going, as technology is applied to help us achieve our wants and desires as opposed to creating some random path that leads to fulfilling no need.

The complaint that I hear the most from students and sponsors is that training takes too long and requires too many resources.  Indeed, much of the time that we spend in a classroom is not spent actively learning as training is often targeted at the lowest common denominator in the classroom.  As a professional trainer, I am often lamenting that I am spending 90% of my productive time working with 10% of the class.  So, while 90% of the class “gets it” and wants to move on, there is a 10% contingent that needs to hear it again… leaving the other 90% in idle chat or silence awaiting the 10%.  It really is a vicious cycle that leads to reduced training content (to fit in an often arbitrary timeline), reduced resources (to fit within an inadequate budget), and reduced effectiveness of the use of that time and those resources.

There are two particular areas where learning is most persistent; trial and error, and collaborative peer learning.  The reason why trial and error is effectively persistent is because there is often an unpleasant consequence to our actions that we do not wish to repeat.  As a result, we commit those mistakes to memory so as not to repeat them and suffer the unpleasant consequence that we associate with that action.  The unfortunate side effect of the trial and error method is that it is often expensive and sometimes people get hurt (or killed) in the process; thus, not a preferred training technique.  That leaves us with collaborative peer learning.

Peer learning is effective for two reasons: first, peers are closer to that state of not understanding and as a result are more effective at relating to the perspective of those who do not know; second, peer pressure is effective because nobody really wants to be left behind and thus there is a motivation for students who fall behind to keep up.  Humans, with few exceptions, tend to be pack animals.  We thrive and perform best in a group setting through collaboration and cooperation.  In a learning environment, social collaboration can produce the most meaningful learning experience that is most persistent; however, capturing and guiding that experience to produce a specific outcome within a given timeframe and budget is often impossible as it is difficult to know exactly how long it will take for social collaboration to arrive at the desired destination.

To get this thread back on track, we are looking at two forces that are significantly influencing the future of training.  The first is the availability of technology to enhance and improve the learning experience, allowing students to experience trial and error without the risk of damaging equipment and endangering lives as well as incorporate social collaboration through media that allows peers to share ideas and perspectives.  The second, a continued push to make training more effective while at the same time reduce the time and resources necessary to conduct training and get people working.  The question is no longer “where; rather, it has become “how”.

Don Tapscott, a business strategy innovator, sums up the problem in this way, “The Net generation uses technologies both for socializing and for working and learning, so their approach to tasks is less about competing and more about working as teams. Therefore, teachers should abandon the “drill and kill, sage on a stage” model of pedagogy, and managers should encourage greater freedom among employees to self-organize.”  The team concept plays well with the human animal as it is a natural formation of people to accomplish a common goal.  Increasingly though, teams are not co-located in the same geographical location to facilitate face to face social collaboration learning; thus, geographically separated teams are often dysfunctional and inefficient.  Using available technology and lessons learned from creating and running social media such as FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter, and others, we can reconnect teams on a global scale to allow for free collaboration in both a real time and asynchronously.  The hurdle that needs to be jumped has little to do with the technology; rather, it has to do with changing the attitudes and traditional position of managers to allow employees to self-organize and collaborate in order to accomplish a given task.  Managers need to move from controlling every aspect of task management to a position of facilitating and guiding discussions and allowing employees to approach the problem from a fresh perspective.