Editorial
Across corporate learning and development (L&D), persistent myths lead even the most well-meaning training teams astray. These myths oversimplify the complexities of how people learn and how organizations grow. Left unchallenged, they distort priorities and make training less effective.
Myths tend to be intuitive, simple to understand and often contain a grain of truth. But when L&D decisions are built on shaky foundations, they waste resources, limit outcomes and frustrate learners. Ongoing research at Training Industry shows just how widespread these misconceptions are and how important it is to challenge them.
Let’s explore five of the most persistent L&D myths and the research that refutes them.
Table of Contents
- Myth 1: Employees have a distinct 'learning style' and matching training delivery to that style improves outcomes.
- Myth 2: Each generation learns differently and learning design should accommodate these differences.
- Myth 3: 70% of learning happens on-the-job, 20% through social interaction and 10% through formal training.
- Myth 4: Information decays quickly unless it’s consistently refreshed.
- Myth 5: According to Kirkpatrick's training evaluation model, you must achieve level 1 before you can achieve level 2, and so on.
- Letting Go of the Myths That Hold Us Back
Myth 1: Employees have a distinct 'learning style' and matching training delivery to that style improves outcomes.
Reality: It’s much more effective to match training delivery to the content being trained and the context of the organization and learners.
Despite its popularity, the idea that people learn best when instruction aligns with their preferred learning style, such as “visual” or “auditory,” is not supported by research. Our research found that roughly 50% of L&D professionals still believe this myth.
When you tailor your training design based on learning styles, you’re misdirecting resources without improving outcomes. Instead, instructional design should prioritize content- and context-appropriate delivery. For example, technical skills may require hands-on simulations, while leadership development may benefit more from dialogue and coaching. Your best bet is to focus on aligning training modality to the content being trained.
Myth 2: Each generation learns differently and learning design should accommodate these differences.
Reality: Learning should be designed inclusively, but research has not supported generational differences in learning preferences and needs.
Nearly half of L&D professionals believe this myth. But the notion that Baby Boomers, Gen X, millennials and Gen Z require different training approaches isn’t supported by data. Instead, learners vary in experience, motivation and access to technology, and these differences don’t neatly align with age.
Designing based on generational assumptions oversimplifies learners, reinforces stereotypes and risks excluding people who don’t fit neatly into generational boxes. Instead, we should be designing for inclusiveness and flexibility, so all of our learners, regardless of their age, context and technology access levels, engage with learning.
Myth 3: 70% of learning happens on-the-job, 20% through social interaction and 10% through formal training.
Reality: Context and content factor heavily into how various sources of information impact learning.
The 70-20-10 model is often cited as a gold standard for learning design, with 78% of learning professionals believing it accurately reflects how learning naturally occurs. The reality, however, is that this idea originated from a small, retrospective study that asked managers to reflect on how they learn and then qualitatively categorized those responses into sources. The results were never meant to be interpreted as a rigid framework, applicable across all types of learners, content and context.
What research shows instead is that effective learning blends sources based on context. Some skills are best learned through formal training, others through guided practice or peer feedback. Some work environments are more conducive to learning through formal means and others to learning through informal channels. Still, the 70-20-10 model is valuable in that it reminds us to consider different learning sources in our design.
Myth 4: Information decays quickly unless it’s consistently refreshed.
Reality: Reinforcement is important, but memory decay depends more on the type of content presented.
The idea that learners will forget everything unless material is refreshed constantly is misleading. Ebbinghaus’s original research into the “forgetting curve” showed a rapid decay in memory, but it was memory for nonsense syllables like GUX or LAJ. While 81% of L&D professionals in our research believe this myth, forgetting isn’t automatic or universal; instead, it depends more on the relevance of the information learned.
So, it’s true that reinforcement boosts retention, but only when the original training was meaningful in the first place. If content is engaging and tied to real work, learners are more likely to retain it.
Myth 5: According to Kirkpatrick's training evaluation model, you must achieve level 1 before you can achieve level 2, and so on.
Reality: Each level in Kirkpatrick’s model is unique and nonsequential. Which metrics or levels you choose to evaluate should be driven by the goals of the training.
With 50% of L&D professionals indicating they believe this myth, it’s no wonder that training evaluation still feels arduous and unachievable. The reality is that training evaluation doesn’t have to be so complicated. You don’t have to achieve positive learner reactions (level 1) to achieve learning (level 2) or behavior change (level 3), and so on. Learners don’t have to like the training to learn from it or change behavior.
Instead, it’s important to consider which metrics best represent your goals for the training as well as which metrics matter the most to your stakeholders. Spend your time and effort measuring what matters most given those goals.
Letting Go of the Myths That Hold Us Back
Debunking these common L&D myths isn’t just about setting the record straight. It’s about freeing your team to focus on what really matters. By relying on current research, L&D professionals stop wasting time on ineffective practices and start investing in what drives performance. When you let go of outdated assumptions, you create space for better decisions, smarter design and more effective learning.
Conference
Oct
20
Gartner IT Symposium/Xpo Orlando 2025
Register
Conference
Oct
27
Gartner HR Symposium/Xpo Orlando 2025
Register
Editor's Note: Read more about trends in the L&D world below:
- How Does Learning and Development Relate to Employee Retention? — Will providing access to training keep employees from quitting as so many experts predict? Or does that question miss the point?
- Transforming Learning at Delta Airlines — Brian Wright, director of global learning and leadership development at Delta, discusses how and why he's moving the company to a greater skills focus.
- From Classroom to Corporate: Making the Leap From K-12 Educator to L&D — Educators possess many transferrable skills that align with corporate L&D, yet the leap isn’t always straightforward. Some tips to make the transition.
Learn how you can join our contributor community.
