Should “Read and Understand” be Considered Training? Part-1

Originally Published on November 22, 2014

For those unfamiliar with the phrase “read and understand,” it is a term used to describe a learning delivery method where employees simply read information and magically understand it. The other half of this method is that when employees receive credit for reading the information, they are considered “trained” on the given topic and, in many cases, even “qualified” to perform a specific task.

Read and understand causes quite a bit of debate, especially within Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) environments, and based on my experience, I believe that many of the issues are due to an organization’s lack of understanding of read and understand as a methodology and are organizationally unprepared for its implementation. This usually leads to the overuse of reading and understanding to the point of misuse/abuse in many organizations. I think the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would agree on that point.

So, “Should read and understand be considered training?” As someone with over 25 years of learning and development experience, a Ph.D. in training, and who has worked under the shadow of the FDA for nearly a decade, I would have to say yes! Whoa, wait, what? That’s right. Read and understand is a valid instructional design option and should be considered part of anyone’s learning and development tool box. Now, before you start throwing things at me, let me explain.

First, when someone says, “read and understand is not training,” you have to decide on using the word “training.” If I were to say, “I’m training this employee,” then training is a verb in the more traditional sense that people think of regarding training. Read and understand in this context would not be considered training, nor would e-learning, for that matter, because I’m referring to an instructor-led methodology. However, if I say, “I’m in training to become a production operator, ” read and understand now becomes a viable learning option. Remember that “training” refers to the skill, knowledge, or experience acquired by one who trains. The definition is void of any reference to actual delivery methods.

Second, read and understand as a learning methodology is used in every industry, college, school, government, and non-profit organization in the world. Other than storytelling, it’s probably one of the oldest methodologies used to pass along knowledge and skills from one person to another. (Read any good cave drawings lately?) It’s been around for centuries and will probably continue for centuries.

Finally, from a business standpoint, read and understand is viable in that it:

• reduces training costs,
• shortens instructional design and development cycle times,
• increases delivery options,
• can be delivered continuously and in multiple formats,
• scales globally with little effort and;
• easily integrates into any organization’s work routine.

How can this be? How can the bane of a GMP trainer’s existence be a good thing? To figure that out, you need to fully understand read and understand as a learning methodology. When you look under the hood, read and understand is a form of self-directed learning (SDL), which refers to the degree of freedom a person has in directing their learning activities and learning outcomes. SDL starts when a learner becoming aware of some need for learning and, for the most part, is independent of any facilitation. Malcolm Knowles summed it up quite well by simply saying that a self-directed learner is someone who takes responsibility for their own learning.

Suppose you were to place SDL on a continuum of instructional delivery methods with andragogy on the left with the least amount of facilitator involvement and pedagogy on the right with the most facilitator involvement. In that case, you can see how SDL (like read and understand) compares with other methodologies (like on-the-job or classroom training). In this model, pure SDL would be all the way to the left.

The degree of independence for SDL varies just like the degree of facilitator involvement with any of the other methodologies. SDL, in its purest form, means that the employee would determine their training needs, the training methodology, and the training timeline to be responsible for the learning outcomes and the application of their learning. The employee would have complete autonomy.

However, it’s not always in an organization’s best interest to leave everything in the hands of the employee. So many organizations will select the learning topics based on organizational needs, the individual’s role, and a set of expected completion dates.

This is a typical scenario when implementing read and understand.

From an SDL perspective, the employee is still accountable for determining when they will actually read the materials and how they will read the materials, and they are ultimately responsible for the learning outcomes. Without any facilitator intervention, the employee is left to interpret and apply (or not apply) what they read. Is that a good thing? It would depend on your industry and the subject matter, but it’s usually not what you want in a GMP environment.

The key to effectively implementing read and understand in your organization lies in understanding that it’s a form of self-directed learning (SDL). Think of it as revealing the “man behind the curtain” or “lifting the fog” around a learning methodology that seems to cause so much trouble for so many organizations. Can you say deviations, investigations, and CAPAs* oh my!

The bottom line is that read and understand will be around for a long time, and it’s an instructional design decision, just like deciding between elearning or instructor-led. However, we need to ask ourselves, “Is it the right design decision?” and “Have I prepared my organization to be self-directed?”

I’ll answer these questions and discuss how you can work towards reducing the risks of using read and understand in Part II and Part III. Until then, keep your saws sharp!

Cheers,

Dr. D.

*CAPA – Corrective Action, Preventive Action. CAPAs focus on systematically investigating the root causes of identified problems or identified risks to prevent their recurrence (for corrective action) or to prevent occurrence (for preventive action).