The neuro-myths of learning: part two
It’s not the time taken, but the cadence of training that counts
By Kris White, Behavioural Psychology specialist and Trainer at Train (https://train-people.com), and Adelaide Vinay, Anthropologist and Trainer at Train.
Achieving greatness takes time. In his book Outliers (2008), Malcolm Gladwell proposed the popular 10,000-hour rule. That is, to achieve the something like the skills of The Beatles or Bill Gates, it takes approximately 10,000 hours of dedicated practice (3.4 years).
As part of our series exploring the neuro-myths of learning for training delivery program Train, this article looks at the evidence for the time it takes to build effective capabilities.
Individuals and organisations are striving to bridge a capabilities gap between their current skills and the skills needed to meet their goals. But bridging the capabilities gap is difficult, particularly if it requires 10,000 hours of investment.
Fortunately, this may not be the case. In a 2014 Princeton meta-analysis of 88 separate studies, researchers looked at how “deliberate practice” — effective, structured and focused practice of a skill — impacted the performance of different individuals. Time spent practising, they found, only explains (on average) 12% of skill mastery and subsequent success. Gladwell has since clarified that something was lost in translation and his main point is that it requires hard work to become great. On this, we agree.
We’ve seen many “magic numbers” for how long it takes to learn. Fast-tracked upskilling programs propose embedding capabilities in 3-day bootcamps, 20-hour learning, 8-hour online courses. Some of these methods have merit, but they are not addressing the fundamental enabler of learning.
Instead of asking “how much time?”, we should be asking “when?”, “how frequently?”. It’s cadence — not total time — that counts.
Enter the ‘forgetting curve’: we (very quickly) lose memory over time. It’s widely accepted by scientists and psychologists that spaced learning, which takes place over time and is segmented by breaks, is more deeply embedded and less impacted by memory decay than learning that takes place in one brief, consecutive block (e.g. cramming). This is the science behind successful learning application Duolingo, which asks learners to practice a language for 5 minutes every day.
In the graph below (adapted from C. Quinn and W. Thalheimer’s models), the orange ‘normal learning curve’ and red ‘normal forgetting curve’ show how quickly we forget over time if learning has not been spaced. Think cramming for an exam over 2 days, then forgetting all of it 4 weeks later. The spaced learning curves, in green, shows how retention is improved by learning over time. The ‘reactivation curve’ shows how learning can be strengthened if it is reactivated over time. This preserves theory and bolsters it with lived experience.
Thalheimer also found that spaced learning increases problem-solving capabilities and adaptability of skills — these are clearly the types of skills we need.
“The ‘spacing effect’ is one of the most reliable findings in the learning research, but it is, unfortunately, one of the least utilized learning methods in the workplace learning field”
There is no perfect amount of time to assign to learning a capability. The critical element is spacing learning over time and ensuring space for varied activities such as consuming theory, observing practical application from experts, gaining lived experience in owned context and being able to reactivate over time, in novel environments.
Follow our ‘Neuro-myths of Learning’ series, where we’ll continue to debunk sellable (but ineffective) tropes and explore the evidence of how the brain best learns.
For any specific insights, or more information, leave a note in the comments and we’ll get back to you (and we’ll try to answer with hard evidence where it exists).
