Accelerated learning - passing fad or the "new way"?

Traditional, instructor-led training has had its place in organisations for many years. It has long been the key method for the transfer of knowledge and skills, especially knowledge-heavy sectors such as IT and finance.  As a former IT trainer, I feel it is questionable as to how much traditional methods have done to promote the credibility of training as an essential function.

For instance, is there another way that would have greater impact and influence on the decision makers in times of recession? I believe there is another way and that is through the application of accelerated learning principles. Particularly for heavy to digest or technical learning, within the IT and finance sectors, accelerated learning can offer a refreshing and engaging experience that is more beneficial and memorable to the learner.  It is also more financially rewarding to the organisation with less down time, where delegates might be struggling to learn new concepts, and increased time being productive. More than ever before, with tighter training budgets, businesses today need to gain a greater return on the investment on their training, and accelerated learning will better support this above traditional methods. 

Those of you on the LDP programmes will have been exposed to David Meier's 4 phase cycle - which is a great model to use when designing programmes. His book "The Accelerated Learning Handbook" has many great stories about US companies who have used accelerated learning and what an impact it has made on their organisations. 

I know there are UK organisations who use accelerated learning principles when designing learning (and I don't just mean putting up posters and a few fiddle toys!), but UK data is hard to find. Do you use accelerated learning principles in your design - I would love to hear of any success stories!

If it works I am sure we would all like to know why and how and what. So please share your accelerated learning success stories so we can spread the word on this approach to designing and delivering great learning.

Votes: 0
E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of DPG Community to add comments!

Join DPG Community

Comments

  • Thanks, Krystyna - it's good to be in touch with you as I've heard good things about you and I'm sure it will be worth us getting together somehow sometime.

    I plan to add some more to the ponits you raise, but for now I just wanted to say briefly that you may be interested to know that when I first trained with David I was a full-time IT trainer responsible for teaching programming languages, systems analysis and systems architecture to computer professionals (I had previously been a Technical Systems Programmer maintaining and upgrading the Operating Systems on mainframe computers - so you can probably see what I mean when I said in my previous post that discovering accelerated learning was an important "turning point" for me !!!!!).

    So if the use of accelerated learning - including the 2/3 "rule" (which isn't a rule, of course) - for heavy technical training is a particular interest of yours, be very happy to get together and compare notes on this some time.

    Will probably say more in due course. Have a good night.

    ant

    I only just picked up these comments so plan to come back on one or two points

    I'm just going to make a brief reply that may be of interest, and then have a re-read and add anything else that occurs

  • Hi Antony

    Thanks for taking the time to comment and so much good stuff in here too!

    I have not had the chance to be trained by David Meier and I do really like his approach. Having read a number of different authors they all bring something to the table - hence the "elasticity" of accelerated learning.

    I love your 5 points on accelerated learning particularly on the design side - having been an IT trainer previously, I may struggle however with the 2/3 "rule". My vision is to make accelerated learning principles accessible to all areas of learning - especially those knowledge heavy and technical type courses.

    I really like David Meier's 4 phase cycle for the big picture - where does it all begin and end? Alistair Smiths Cycle is great for each session (to a point) - how should it be structured?

    My research has brought me to create 5 broad pillars that you should include when designing and delivering. If you look at the following well known books, these 5 pillars stand true:

    Colin Rose's "Accelerated Learning"

    Lou Russell's "Accelerated Learning Fieldbook"

    Larry Reynolds and Kimberley Hares "The Trainers Toolkit"

    David Meier's "Accelerated Learning Handbook"

    One of the things that led me to develop these 5 pillars was that reading the literature, I struggled to really understand (back to the elasticity again) what I would need to do to accelerate learning. So for me, these 5 pillars have helped me to focus on 5 key things, when designing and delivering (and evaluating). I tend to use David Meier and Alistair Smith for sequencing and a framework to work to.

    Looking at the 5 things you mentioned they also fit in with the 5 pillars:

    1) Objectives, environment, learners, facilitator and the brain

    2) The learners and the brain

    3) The environment, the learners and the brain

    4) The learners

    5) The learners and the brain

    Great to debate these things Antony - look forward to further comments from you and others!

    kind regards

    Krystyna

  • Hi Krystyna –

    Good posts and neat videos. I was lucky enough to be trained in this approach by Dave Meier in 1992 (at an impressive “country house”-type venue in Wokingham, in case any of you might also have been there!) and have used it ever since. For me it was a personal “watershed” moment because it completely changed my thinking about learning and sent me in a completely new direction  both personally and professionally that has shaped my experience ever since.

    Over the 20 years since I’ve collected my fair share of successes and testimonials as I’m sure all of us reading these postings will have done, but I wouldn’t be comfortable dignifying any of these as “data”, since:

    • For me this implies a level of rigour in measurement above any I’ve generally aspired to, and
    • By far the greater proportion of everything I’ve done has been development of “new” learning, and only occasionally have I re-developed any “existing” learning solutions in a way that has generated genuine “before and after” data. (I’ve always had good results where this has happened, it just hasn’t been that frequent.)

    The reality for me is that whenever I have used these techniques well and in a committed way the  benefits have been abundantly clear – and loudly acknowledged – in the subjective experience of the learners, and no-one who has had these experiences, or seen the results, has ever questioned their value.

    Another challenge around the question of “data” – which I think your videos nicely illustrate – is that the term “accelerated learning” is incredibly elastic. There is not one thing in either of the videos I could not whole-heartedly agree with and yet, at the same time, I still have my own personal definition and criteria of what constitutes thorough-going accelerated learning – and every other practitioner working in this area that I have ever met would say the same.

     The result is often an overwhelming multiplicity of “principles” so wide-ranging, varied, and – most importantly – all containing endorsable “truths” about learning, that any clear distinctions between “accelerated” and “traditional” methods can quickly turn into mush.

    Although as a newcomer to this Forum I hesitate to step into these murky waters, I’m going to anyway; otherwise it wouldn’t have been worth me subjecting you to all of the above unreadable blather !

    So – acknowledging again that I agree completely with everything set out in your two videos – I’m going to take the plunge and offer one or two further thoughts (mostly taken directly from Dave Meier) about what I think is most likely to distinguish learning processes that will be experienced as “accelerated” from those that might be considered more “conventional”. Here goes:

    • The learning designers have given explicit consideration, and designed specific aspects of the learning activities and inputs, to helping learners form a positive emotional relationship with the learning and the content, and to be properly ready to begin learning physically, mentally, and emotionally. (As opposed to simply assuming that learners will somehow naturally be “ready to learn” as soon as they find themselves within a learning experience.)
    • Learners are learning directly from their own activities around 2/3 of the total learning time, and passively paying attention to the tutor, or other information inputs, no more than 1/3. And that if there are several activities involved, they use a variety of styles and approaches and are therefore clearly distinguishable one from another.
    • There is extensive use of non-verbal stimuli – imagery, objects, sounds, movements, etc. – to represent and achieve the learning, and that to the greatest extent possible this non-verbal content is novel and unique to the subject-matter
    • Most of the learning involves learners working together, rather than on their own
    • Learners can and do participate in ways that are enjoyable, relaxing, playful, positive, and generate curiosity and interest

    I don’t contend that these are easy criteria to satisfy, nor would I suggest for one moment that I have always – or even that regularly – been able to meet them to my own satisfaction.

    What I have found is that when I use these as a key part of my framework for designing learning, it’s always given me the best chance of coming up with something that helps learners to make progress with less effort, more enjoyment, greater retention, and better translation into everyday practice.

    Think that’s more than enough from me for a single post – but like you I look forward to exchanging further views and experiences on this subject with others on this forum.

    Cheers.

  • I know I have mentioned David Meier's cycle - as the handbook is so good, but there is another cycle that I have found useful when designing a new session and this is Alistair Smiths's cycle, which I have adapted here in this video to make it a little easier to remember:

     

  • It has fascinated me too - especially starting off as an IT trainer, where I thought there was no place for facilitation, games, icebreakers, energisers etc. I still feel that whatever you do whether it is a game, icebreaker or activity it should be connected to the subject - to help maximise the time in the classroom learning.

    I have seen a lot of trainers who are great at the activity and getting everyone up and engaging, but then forget to have a time of reflection and a time of "now how can I apply that to my work?". Kolb's experiential cycle still holds very true for me. I also try to make the point to the learners that although they may prefer to learn in a certain way, the best way to learn is by going through the whole cycle. This is where the joint ownership of the learning becomes important.

    One great way to get that joint ownership is in the set-up or contracting. A few months ago I attended a forum where we had a session on clean language set up. Though skeptical at first, I have been really impressed by the depth to which these questions go. If you want to have a go, at the beginning of a programme, to set up that joint partnership, here are the 3 questions you can use, in this order ( record on a flip chart the answers, without much comment):

    - For this programme/session/workshop to be of value to you what must it be like?

    - In order for it to be like this, you will have to be like what?

    - In order for you to be like that, what will we need to be like?

    For those other skeptics out there - just have a go!

  • Hi Krys

    Thanks for your post on what is a fascinating subject. I first became aware of accelerated learning techniques when I first joined the L&D ranks in 2006 and was encouraged to use colourful toys, scented pens and music in my courses as it helped stimulate the different senses which in turn would aid memory through power of association. In fact different types of music can contribute to different situations as discussed in this post Using Music to Enhance the Learning Experience.

    I agree that the traditional stand up and deliver (chalk and talk) approach to training delivery has perhaps done more harm to the reputation of L&D than anything else, whilst I believe facilitation is a key skill I also believe that there are ways and means to offer more from classroom time such as using accelerated learning techniques and things like the flipped classroom approach. We need to be delivering more for less and raising our game to deliver solutions and initiatives that impact and improve performance.

    Ebbinghaus forgetting curve shows us that we do not retain information from JUST a traditional approach to training i.e. just classroom delivery so anything we can do to enhance the retention of knowledge in this environment is a massive plus. The way the human brain works is fascinating and the way and means it processes and retains information is something we are only really scratching the surface of.

    What ever your approach or thoughts on the subject, as Learning Professionals we need to be aware of anything that gives us an edge and makes an impact and I'm interesting in learning more.

This reply was deleted.

Get Involved

Start a discussion in one of the following Zones