Five training myths worth retiring

Workplace learning is still influenced by ideas that are repeated so often they begin to sound like facts. Some are harmless shorthand. Others shape how organisations invest, assess competence and respond when something goes wrong. The problem is not simply that these myths are inaccurate. It is that they can lead organisations to measure the wrong things, choose the wrong interventions and assume that learning has taken place when little has changed at work.

Myth 1: “People only remember 10% of training”
Most of us have seen the familiar diagram claiming that people remember fixed percentages of what they read, hear, discuss or practise. It is appealing because it turns the complexity of human learning into a simple formula. The difficulty is that the percentages are not supported by credible empirical evidence. Investigations into the origins of the so-called ‘learning pyramid’ have found no reliable body of research behind the figures.

There is no universal retention rate. What people remember depends on what they already know, whether the learning is relevant, how often they retrieve and practise it, and whether they have an opportunity to apply it during real work. The more useful question is not, “How much of the course will people remember?”; it is, “Will they be able to retrieve and use the right knowledge when the situation is unfamiliar and the pressure is real?”

Myth 2: “E-learning is less effective than classroom learning”
We still discuss digital and classroom learning as though one must be inherently better than the other. It is not that simple. A passive classroom presentation can be every bit as forgettable as a poorly designed online course. Equally, effective digital learning can allow people to make decisions, revisit difficult content, learn at their own pace and access guidance at the point of need.

A US Department of Education meta-analysis of 51 independent comparisons found that learners in online conditions performed modestly better, on average, than those receiving face-to-face teaching. The strongest results were often associated with blended learning, although the researchers rightly cautioned that the improvement could not be attributed to technology alone. 

Learning time, design and teaching methods also mattered. The format is rarely the decisive factor; the quality of the learning experience is. Before debating classroom versus digital, organisations should ask: “What do people need to understand, practise or do differently, and which combination of methods will best achieve that outcome?”

Myth 3: “Refresher training every three years is enough”
Three years has become a strangely reassuring number. It appears in competence matrices and training calendars as though knowledge expires predictably on an anniversary. Risk does not work to that timetable.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) does not prescribe a universal refresher period for every activity. Its guidance recognises that additional learning may be needed when equipment, systems of work or working practices change, or when performance indicates that competence may have deteriorated. 

For lift-truck operators, for example, there is no single mandatory refresher interval. Employers are expected to monitor performance rather than simply wait for a date in the calendar. A three-year cycle may be appropriate in some situations; in others, three weeks may be too long. A near miss, new technology, revised procedure, emerging health risk, extended absence or visible unsafe practice should all prompt organisations to reconsider whether competence remains current. 

The real question is: “What has changed since people were last trained, and what evidence tells us they can still perform safely?”

Myth 4: “Passing an exam proves competence”
Passing an examination is an achievement. It can demonstrate that someone understands important principles and can apply knowledge under defined assessment conditions. But it is not the whole of competence. 

HSE describes competence as a combination of training, skills, experience and knowledge, together with the ability to apply them safely. Factors such as attitude and physical capability may also affect performance. Workplace health and safety decisions rarely arrive as neatly framed examination questions. People must interpret incomplete information, recognise when a procedure no longer fits, respond to conflicting priorities and sometimes challenge someone more senior. 

An exam can tell us what someone knew at a particular moment – it cannot always tell us how they will act when the task changes, time is short or the safer decision is unpopular. Competence is demonstrated not only by knowing the answer, but by applying sound judgement in the conditions in which work is actually carried out. Managers should therefore ask: “Can this person use their knowledge consistently, recognise the limits of their competence and seek help when the answer is not obvious?”

Myth 5: “Experienced workers do not need training”
Experience is enormously valuable. It develops practical judgement, pattern recognition and an understanding of work that cannot always be gained through formal instruction. But experience is not automatically the same as current competence. Repeatedly carrying out a task can strengthen good practice; it can also normalise workarounds, reinforce outdated assumptions and create confidence that familiar methods remain safe.

Equipment changes; standards develop; workloads increase. New materials and technologies are introduced. 

An experienced worker may remain highly capable while the risk around them changes. However, HSE guidance recognises that refresher learning may still be needed for trained, qualified and experienced workers, particularly after changes to equipment or systems of work, periods away from a task, incidents, near misses or signs of unsafe practice. 

Experienced employees may not need the same learning as a new starter. They may need something more demanding: an opportunity to challenge established habits, explore emerging risks, test their judgement and share their expertise with others. The question is not whether someone has done the job for 20 years. It is: “Have they developed 20 years of learning, or repeated the same year of experience 20 times?”

These myths all share the same weakness. They treat learning as predictable, competence as permanent, and training as something separate from the work itself. Effective training is not defined by a percentage, a delivery format, a refresher date, an exam result or the number of years someone has performed a task. Its value is demonstrated when people can recognise changing hazards, challenge assumptions, exercise sound judgement and adapt their decisions as work evolves.

Dr Julie Riggs is education and membership director at British Safety Council.

Connect with Dr Julie Riggs on LinkedIn.