Why Training Doesn’t Stick: What the Science of Learning and Transfer Tells Us

Team Science – With a Twist

At TeamPath, we like our advice backed by evidence. But let’s be honest—academic research on teams can be a bit dry. So we’ve asked AI to turn top team science papers into podcast-style conversations.

The result? Something like John and Gail from Pitch Perfect—if they swapped a cappella commentary for team dynamics. John’s blunt and occasionally inappropriate. Gail’s sharp and slightly over it. Together, they break down the science so you don’t have to. It’s research, with a little banter.

Disclaimer: These episodes are AI-generated. While we aim for accuracy, the bots may occasionally go rogue.

Most Training Is Forgotten—But We Can Fix That

Hermann Ebbinghaus first mapped the "forgetting curve" in the 1880s. By testing his own memory of nonsense syllables, he showed that people forget most of what they learn unless it’s revisited soon and repeatedly. His findings laid the groundwork for what we now know: memory is not just fragile—it's perishable.

Modern research shows that the forgetting curve is alive and well in today’s workplaces. Even after well-designed training programs, employees often fail to change what they do back on the job. This blog explores why that happens and what helps learning stick, drawing on three important studies:

• Arthur et al. (2003) on what makes training effective,
• Blume et al. (2010) on what enables training to transfer to work,
• Latimier et al. (2021) on the benefits of spacing out practice and retrieval.

Each paper brings evidence-based insight into the mechanics of learning, forgetting, and applying new skills.

‍

Key Findings: 🧠 The Forerunner - Ebbinghaus' Forgetting Curve

‍

Ebbinghaus' experiments showed that without reinforcement, people forget around 50% of new information within an hour and up to 90% within a week. But he also discovered that repetition and time gaps slow this decline dramatically.

That basic insight still holds: to retain what you learn, you need to recall it actively and space out that recall over time.

‍

Paper 1: Arthur et al. (2003) – "Effectiveness of Training in Organizations": Training can work well, but only when it's designed and evaluated carefully.

‍

This meta-analysis looked at 162 training evaluation studies. The authors found that training had a moderate to strong effect on learning and workplace performance. In plain terms, this means that training can lead to real improvements—not just small ones, but meaningful changes in behaviour and results.

But there were big caveats:

• Training programs often use "reaction" measures like how much people enjoyed a session. These scores have almost no link to whether anyone actually learned or changed behaviour.
• Results were better when training was tailored to the type of skill being taught (e.g., simulations for interpersonal skills, not slides).
• Crucially, evaluating the impact (rather than just gathering feedback) was rare, but made a big difference.

🔍 Layperson lens:

Think of it like fitness. Enjoying a gym class doesn’t mean your strength improved. You need to measure what changes—not just how fun it was.

‍

Paper 2: Blume et al. (2010) – "Transfer of Training": People might learn new skills in training but still fail to use them at work. And that’s often not their fault.

‍

This paper analysed 89 studies to find out what influences whether people actually use what they learn. The answer? A combination of personal motivation and supportive environments.

Key predictors of successful transfer:

• Cognitive ability, motivation, and conscientiousness all made a difference, but together they explained only a modest part of the puzzle.
• Workplace environment factors (like manager support and peer encouragement) played a larger role.
• Transfer was more likely when training focused on open skills (like leadership or communication) rather than closed skills (like following specific technical procedures).

Statistically, these factors had "small to moderate effect sizes," which means they explain maybe 10–30% of the outcome. In real life, that’s significant—but it also reminds us that no single factor explains everything.

🔍 Layperson lens:

Even if someone is smart and motivated, they probably won’t use new skills unless the workplace encourages and supports it.

‍

Paper 3: Latimier et al. (2021) – "Spaced Retrieval Practice and Retention": People remember more when they struggle to recall material over time, not when they cram or re-read it.

‍

This paper analysed nearly 100 comparisons and found that spaced retrieval (i.e., quizzing or recalling content after time gaps) led to strong improvements in memory. The reported "effect size" was about 0.74, which in practice means a large and visible benefit.

Interestingly, there was no major advantage to making the spacing progressively longer (expanding) versus keeping it consistent (uniform).

Most important factors:

• Spacing matters more than cramming.
• More retrieval attempts = better retention.
• Feedback and active effort (not passive review) drove the best results.

🔍 Layperson lens:

If you want someone to remember something, test them on it—a few times, with gaps in between. That ‘struggle to remember’ is what makes the memory stronger.

‍

Current Thinking: Training as a System, Not a Session

‍

Modern learning researchers are moving beyond workshops and courses. They see training as part of a larger system of support, feedback, and daily practice. Here are some trends:

• Microlearning: Delivering small, spaced chunks of content over time.
• Peer and manager follow-ups: Encouraging dialogue, reflection, and feedback.
• Habit-based design: Turning learnings into daily team rituals or check-ins.
• Transfer support: Including simulations, coaching, or prompts to encourage real-world use.

There’s growing consensus that what happens after training matters as much as the training itself.

‍

Why This Is Interesting for TeamPath

‍

These findings align deeply with TeamPath’s philosophy: team learning is most powerful when it is embedded in real behaviour, shaped by context, and reinforced over time.

In practical terms, this means:

• Training needs reinforcement. If a team learns a skill on Monday but doesn’t use or revisit it in the weeks ahead, they’ll forget it.
• Support beats willpower. The best intentions won’t overcome a culture or system that doesn’t support change.
• Peer influence matters. People apply new behaviours more when their team encourages and models it.
• Measurement needs to reflect change, not just satisfaction. Real improvement shows up in actions, not just happy feedback forms.

What if we stopped seeing training as an event and started seeing it as the first step in a team behaviour journey?

‍

Final Word

‍

Training works. But it works best when it’s:

• Designed with the right goals,
• Delivered with behavioural support,
• Reinforced over time,
• And shaped by the team context.

Understanding why training often fails to stick isn’t just about fixing problems—it’s about building a better path for change.

Full List of References:

‍

• Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features - Arthur, W., Jr., Bennett, W., Jr., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234 
  ‍
• Transfer of Training: A Meta-Analytic Review (2010) - Brian D. Blume, Timothy Baldwin, J. Kevin Ford, Jason L. Huang https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235975809_Transfer_of_Training_A_Meta-Analytic_Review 
  ‍
• A Meta-Analytic Review of the Benefit of Spacing out Retrieval Practice Episodes on Retention (2021) - Alice Latimier, Hugo Peyre, Franck Ramus https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-020-09572-8 

‍This podcast includes content generated with the help of artificial intelligence. While we've done our best to guide and review the conversation, there may be occasional errors or inaccuracies. Please listen with that in mind and always double-check any critical information. Thanks for your understanding!