Why can learning time vary from simple to quadruple depending on the learning method?
Many companies provide English training without a clearly established objective by either the company or the training organisation. Yet, the simplest objective is to target C1 level (“operational”) as defined on the ALTE scale, as it allows for real productivity gains for the company. With this level, the practice of English no longer becomes a hindrance to the proper performance of the employee’s duties in their international exchanges.
According to the ALTE association, it takes 400 hours of training for an employee to progress from a B1 level (intermediate) to a C1 level (operational). Let’s consider the case of an employee who would have a starting “intermediate” level as this is the average level of employees for whom English training is justified.
Given that one hour of individual lessons in a traditional language school costs approximately £60 excluding VAT, the bill for this employee to reach a C1 level could be steep: £24,000 excluding VAT! Not to mention the 400 hours to fit into their schedule over several years, with the risk that the employee may leave the company the day they finally become operational.
A cultural handicap
Regarding this statistic of 400 hours, it is important to clarify that ALTE bases this on the number of learning hours generally observed.
First of all, in the collective unconscious, it is ingrained that mastering a language is endless since the ten years spent learning English at school has allowed few of us to truly master the language. Additionally, it is common knowledge that traditional training is particularly ineffective, and this average of 400 hours reflects that. However, this number of hours seems realistic because language schools maintain, for the most part, a pedagogical approach that has evolved little in 40 years. In France, 90% of the market is held by traditional language schools, thus perpetuating this dogma.
At the same time, some disparage digital players. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that some of these players have merely offered online English courses without exploiting innovations in cognitive sciences and without concern for their pedagogical effectiveness.
I am not crying foul on traditional language schools; there are excellent ones fortunately, and we know them!
Innovations in cognitive sciences and learning performance
Regarding the ALTE statistic, two points deserve to be addressed:
Firstly, cognitive science experts question the very principle of “training”. The 70-20-10 model shows that only 10% of learning is done through formal training, 20% through informal learning, and 70% on the job. So, there is no need for 400 hours of formal training. If 400 hours of English practice are truly necessary, the portion of formal and informal training should not exceed 120 hours.
Secondly, in many countries and in France, we have not learned how to learn, let alone a foreign language. However, by applying a few simple rules, learning time is divided by 3. These are methods recognised by experts in memory anchoring, motivation, cognitive sciences, and neurosciences.
Thus, two employees with equivalent aptitudes, benefiting from the same training, will take very different times to reach the same level, if one applies these few principles. They will progress 3 to 4 times faster.
The 70-20-10 principle, combined with simple recipes, makes it possible to drastically reduce the number of hours needed. We observe, for example, that 80% of learners progressing from a B1 to B2 level or from a B2 to C1 level achieve this in 50 hours of blended learning on average. Instead of the 400 hours estimated by ALTE, some methods allow for achieving the same result in about a hundred hours, or 4 times less.
According to tests (for example with TOEIC), we find that this is not a miraculous method unique to a single player. Recognised linguists also affirm this. It is possible to drastically reduce learning time by applying clear and simple principles.
From a budget perspective, this changes everything
Individual courses make the bill skyrocket, but digital learning reduces it. Digital is more effective for oral and written comprehension, for written expression, as well as for the assimilation of vocabulary and grammar.
Taking into account the employee’s profession, the urgency, and the need to express oneself perfectly, one can estimate a budget of £800 to £1,200 excluding VAT to progress from B1 to C1. This corresponds to approximately 100 hours of training, including thirty to fifty 30-minute sessions in individual courses. We are far from the £24,000 mentioned above.
Depending on the employee’s availability, the training will span from 4 months to 2 years. One condition: choose a provider that constantly stimulates the learner’s motivation. Without this, the risk of dropout is high.
This is where mobile learning comes in
Adults spend more and more time on their smartphones, which facilitates regular connection to digital learning. Training activities are designed to be short (10 to 15 minutes) because concentration declines beyond that. The 70-20-10 model advocates anchoring language practice in daily life rather than dedicating a long session once a week.
The end of traditional training?
The latest generation of blended learning solutions signals the death knell for endless and ineffective language training. £1,200 to transform an “intermediate” employee into an operational employee changes the game! The ROI is there, not to mention the collateral benefits such as employee retention, company attractiveness, enhancement of the employer brand, team mobility, etc.
