Old dog. New tricks.

I love learning new stuff and, beyond the obvious benefit of increased knowledge, skill or awareness I have a professional interest in how different things are taught in different contexts.

These last few months I've re-qualified as a first aider at my local rugby club, passed my advanced motorcycle test with the IAM, completed an advanced executive coaching course and been accredited following a team coaching programme.

The latter 2 were 100% virtual, with reading and live practice between sessions. The First Aid course was face-to-face in a makeshift classroom, and the IAM training was multiple, 2+ hour, 1:1 observed rides with individual practice and reading assignments between sessions. These last 2 were also run by volunteers and/or non-profits or charities.

So what have I (re)learned about my learning?

• I love learning new stuff!

• All methods can work and have some clear pros and cons

• All approaches were a blend of methods to an extent

• Face-to-face and experiential i.e. doing it are by far the most effective for me. The very wise Lucy Ryan introduced me to Kolb et al many years ago, and I know I'm an activist by nature but I also need to reflect and understand the theory before practising again.

• The advanced motorcycling has been the most enjoyable, challenging and effective - the method has been honed by the Police and the IAM over many years and simply cannot function without face-to-face observation and feedback. This was an issue in lockdown as all training essentially ceased. Given it's intensity and 1:1 student to observer set-up it doesn't scale easily.

• Virtual is ok, you can do more than you think is possible and kudos to some excellent trainers who have sweated the technology to make it dance. For me it presents 2 main issues: 1. my attention drifts, sitting at my desk surrounded by flip charts, pens, books, and the very device I'm looking at, it's too easy to fall into the myth of 'multi-tasking'. 2. I learn so much from the other participants and you are necessarily constrained in how much interaction there can be. That opportunity to compare notes, go for a walk, have a coffee and share stories isn't there. Yes, you can create facsimiles of the experience but, for me, not the same, too much is lost.

• Classrooms still work (as a parent of 3 school age boys, this is a relief!) It can be makeshift, cold, even a bit uncomfortable (Rosslyn Park Bar, I'm talking about you), but the energy, knowledge and enthusiasm of the teacher will carry the day (Jen, I'm talking about you).

• A curriculum that has been tested & honed over time with good supporting materials/apps is critical if you are seeking to qualify for something. A more emergent approach can work if you are aiming to expand your practice.

So how does this apply in business settings? Well, obviously there isn't a simple answer, distrust anyone who says or sells differently. I've seen examples of classroom training that could be done virtually, possibly better. And vice versa. Given the constraints we operate under: cost, globally dispersed teams, time; trade-offs need to be made. If I had a simple rule to guide the decisions it would be this (and I reserve the right to change it): how good does the person need to be at the thing they are learning, really? Do they just need to know it? Do they need to be competent enough? Do they need to be really good? Or, ultimately, do lives depend on them doing it right? Pilots, surgeons and nuclear engineers do an enormous amount of VR training BUT they spend even more time doing it live, supervised and with rigorous feedback. Take everyone's favourite, managers. Does your business need them to be merely competent or do they need to be really good? I was lucky, my first job trained me for a year before releasing me into the wild. They were clear that junior managers were important and invested heavily. What about you and your business; what have you learned recently and what did you learn about learning?