Five reasons to skip classroom learning

In this article we’re going to explore five reasons to skip classroom learning. When looking back over most of modern history, education and learning as a whole could be defined by its link to the classroom. Aside from perhaps the library, no other place of education has had the same influence on learning. Everyone has memories of being in school and having a lesson on a given topic within a classroom, with some thirty hours a week being spent learning information with highly mixed engagement and retention rates.

After leaving academia, any learning we undertake usually has strict relevance either to a particular role or more general company training. Examples of these are compliance training, IT skills training and leadership and management training. Therefore, how we learn at work is with consideration to specific requirements for staff, with increasing flexibility from digital technology and as work schedule innovations progress.

Whilst classroom training still has a place in this learning mix, it has become harder to justify in some cases, particularly as travel and other costs have risen in recent years. The benefits of classroom training are clear, with such direct contact offering opportunities to role play, to receive expert ‘in the room’ feedback on the new skills being acquired and to network with colleagues during breaks. It can be difficult to decide when is not the appropriate time to implement classroom learning though. Read on for five reasons you may want to skip classroom training in favour of something else.

When the information is not directly role-relevant

For L&D to be done within a classroom, employees need to be away from their work duties. This could be for an hour or a day, therefore any training done needs to be a direct investment into skills specific for their role. This is to compensate for lost time spent away from work to conduct training, yet also be a long-term investment in staff productivity. At its best, classroom training not only brings people new skills but enhances productivity for the benefit of the employee and of course the employer.

Classroom L&D can conflict with employee work schedules

Hybrid working is an increasingly popular optimisation routine that accounts for both output productivity and employee schedule commitments, resulting in improved work efficiency and better wellbeing. Classroom learning, therefore, might not suit some organisations who have fully embraced the hybrid model.

Everyone has meeting commitments, optimal times throughout the day that they work within their own preference and times during the week that they work remotely. With the hybrid model, people are often on different working patterns and may not overlap in the office with some colleagues. With this in mind, it is worth assessing if classroom training is not only necessary but practically achievable. With work schedule factors and more to consider when planning classroom training for an entire team or workforce, options ranging from the digital to blended may be a preferable alternative for training your business.

If the learning can be done from just doing a job

People are complex, as such how they learn and perform work is not as simple as one strict method being best for learning. After all, very rarely in life does a single method fit every scenario. This is where learning models, such as the 70:20:10 rule, enter the picture. Taking this on board, it is clear that the vast majority of learning is done via directly working on a job, with additional structured learning being at best supplementary. Considering this, it is worth assessing the reliability of classroom learning when compared to directly carrying out a task and whether such L&D would subtract hands-on experience from an employee’s regular routine.

If it is too expensive to organise

Where there is a classroom, there is an instructor. As such, fees that can include payment and transport for an L&D specialist’s services can be expensive when considering the logistics of your employee training. This is before you consider the possibility of venue hiring or organising a company day out. The cost of people’s time to attend is also a key consideration. Such plans on the surface might seem like a fun way to present classroom L&D, yet in practice presents needless costs that can outweigh the benefits of group interaction when compared to the cost-efficiency of digital L&D. It is of course possible to use break out rooms in a virtual classroom setting which, whilst not exactly the same, can go some way to improving interaction without getting everyone physically together in a room somewhere.

If it does not acknowledge the Forgetting Curve

What if you have planned your classroom L&D carefully and presented detailed and intrinsic information to your staff over the course of a day, only for most of it to be quickly forgotten? This is because, due to the Forgetting Curve, one could present the perfect content to inform staff but if such knowledge is not directly applied on a consistent basis, most of it will inevitably be forgotten. As a result, it may be for the best that highly detailed and comprehensive L&D be shifted away from classroom instruction and is instead delegated to more continuous learning, delivered via means such as digital or blended.

At the very least, classroom training should be carefully planned such that delegates return to their roles able to use their new skills. So often, managers are not made aware of the need to let their direct reports experiment with their new learning whilst they assimilate the information and perhaps make changes to the way they do things. This is a vital part of the overall training process. It may even require targets to be adjusted for a salesperson, for example, whilst they get up to speed and inevitably make mistakes along the way. The benefit of allowing people to fully integrate their new knowledge is an increase in productivity further down the line, greater than would have happened without the training. Unfortunately, training is regularly seen as a ‘one and done’ intervention that in practice achieves very little and wastes training budget.

So, what are the key takeaways to consider?

Here are five key recommendations for you to put into action:

Only organise classroom L&D if it is role-specific.
Make sure that any classroom L&D does not conflict with staff work schedules.
Consider if the training is needed in a structured classroom or if it can be done on the job.
Determine the cost of classroom L&D and assess if there are no cheaper alternatives.
Decide if the L&D you are implementing would instead best be taught as continuous learning, accounting for the Forgetting Curve.

About Lawford Knight

At Lawford Knight, we are dedicated to finding optimal solutions for the L&D requirements of your business. We design and implement change to drive your business-growth via L&D formats designed to give your staff the training needed for their roles. This is while allowing them to retain information crucial in securing the future of your business. Contact us now, let’s get started on upskilling your business through targeted and intentional L&D.