A recent publication titled ‘Lost in Translation – Fixing the learn to earn skills gap’ by the Pearson Education and Publishing Company caught my eye. It was not specifically created to cover the investigation or interview training arena, but areas identified as critical may be equally applicable.
The report highlights the urgent need to rethink how we train for complex roles. Though the focus is broader than law enforcement, its message resonates powerfully with those of us involved in investigative interviewing.
The report highlighted a mismatch between traditional training models and the skills needed today, especially the ability to learn how to learn.
Police training in the U.S. is shorter and more fragmented than in much of Europe and parts of Asia, with fewer hours devoted to academic knowledge, ethics, and communication. European models, exemplified by countries like Finland, Norway, and Germany, invest years in developing well-rounded officers, emphasizing law, ethics, and restrained use of force. abcnews.go.com/US/police-training
This reduced focus on areas like interviewing and investigative communication despite interviewing being a core skill that determines the quality of evidence gathered, U.S. police recruits spend just 36 hours on average training in investigative methods, compounding the issues are that much of that time may be rooted in outdated models focused on confession rather than information gathering.
This isn’t just a numbers problem, it’s a pedagogical one. Traditional lecture-based formats and short, fragmented courses are poorly suited to developing adaptive, critical-thinking professionals. Adults don’t just need information; they need meaningful, experiential learning that helps them apply, reflect, and adapt in high-pressure environments.
The report emphasizes that making learning more effective is a crucial intervention required to address the escalating "skills chasm". New effective learning strategies are required.
The core idea is to foster "learning to learn", which means actively and consciously planning the way one learns, investing energy to understand new topics, and employing both behavioral (doing) and metacognitive (reflecting) strategies to make learning more efficient and effective. The report outlines four key ways to achieve more effective learning:
1. Make Learning to Learn a Priority Objective
The sources argue that "learning to learn" needs to be intentionally interwoven into education and the workplace. Currently, education predominantly focuses on the "what" (mastery of topic-based information) rather than the "how" (progression of skills needed to approach new topics flexibly and effectively). This is problematic as research shows that while learning-to-learn skills can significantly impact student performance, fewer than half of students regularly employ these effective strategies.
Barriers to integrating "learning to learn" include a lack of appropriate training for trainers, time constraints, and differing views on who is responsible for developing such skills. The report stresses that support must come from institutions and government policy, backed by training and curriculum adjustments. Similarly, the workplace must adopt a more systematic approach to "learning to learn," with agencies needing to create a learning culture that encourages and rewards effective learning, as workplace climate and manager support are critical for successful skill transfer.
2. Embed Learning Science in Trainer and Manager Training
A fundamental step to making learning more effective is to embed learning science directly into the training of teachers and managers. Most current teacher training doesn't adequately focus on the continuous learning and development needed to adapt to new educational practices or research. Likewise, workplace manager training often neglects how and why to develop employees as effective learners.
The solution proposed is training that equips trainers and managers with an understanding of how the brain learns and what actions are necessary to facilitate effective learning for their employees. This includes the "basic tenets of learning science" such as:
- Spaced repetition of learning.
- The nature of the practice environment.
The role of deliberate, purposeful practice in building skills. As discussed previously, this is vital because "we used to learn to do the work and now learning is the work".
3. Foster Opportunities to Teach and Apply Learning to Learn
The sources highlight that "learning-to-learn skill development is often fragmented" and not consistently integrated into core workplace practices. To address this, these skills should be embedded directly into core subjects across the curriculum, making them fundamental to learning rather than supplementary activities. This involves teaching techniques that build these skills as a natural part of learning, regardless of the topic.
Explicit instruction in "learning to learn" is particularly crucial for adults. Barbara Oakley explains that while children learn more "automatically," adults learn "declaratively – consciously, or on purpose." Therefore, adults often need to unlearn existing bad habits before adopting more effective ones. Marcel Veenman adds that people need to understand why these learning strategies are relevant, seeing that they lead to "less time, fewer mistakes and better results".
In the workplace, this also requires regular, structured reflection and feedback, with managers playing a crucial role as coaches to set learning goals and monitor progress. The report even envisions a future where AI-driven tools could actively nudge individuals toward more effective learning habits during daily work.
4. Assess an Individual’s Approach to Learning
The "measurement void" is identified as a significant obstacle to progress in "learning-to-learn" adoption. The principle is that "what gets measured gets practiced." Currently, most institutions and enterprises lack ways to monitor and track skill progression effectively.
Crucially, there is a need for clear target outcomes and definitions for "learning-to-learn" skills, alongside a shared language that transcends regional and institutional differences. Measuring these skills longitudinally and in various scenarios provides the clearest view of a learner's full potential, including retention and transfer of skills to different settings, like the workplace. Finally, advancing technology, particularly AI, offers new opportunities to refine these assessments through "advanced analytics" and "data tracing," allowing for detailed tracking of user interaction with learning tools, such as the thoughtfulness of questions asked or self-reflection. As Rose Luckin notes, these changes are fundamentally about becoming "a lot more sophisticated in the way that we think and learn".
Why scenario-driven training?
Scenario-based training is a common thread but with different focus areas. Nearly all U.S. academies use scenario simulations (e.g. mock traffic stops, crisis calls), and so do European schools. However, European scenarios often test judgment and communication under stress, not just tactical proficiency. For instance, in Berlin’s academy, a role-play might involve defusing a volatile situation without force, whereas a U.S. equivalent might more heavily emphasize the mechanics of making a high-risk arrest. This difference in emphasis (communication vs. control) stems from the broader training philosophies
Scenario-based interview training is grounded in cognitive and learning science, it helps trainees:
- Build interviewing skills through deliberate, repeated practice
- Develop ethical reasoning and communication under pressure
- Engage in reflective learning—a key driver of professional judgment
This is the kind of “learning to learn” that the Pearson report advocates for and that modern investigative interviewing demands. As AI, social expectations, and legal standards evolve, static skillsets are no longer enough. What we need are law enforcement professionals who are agile learners and adaptive communicators.
Let’s not get lost in translation. Let’s invest in training that reflects the realities of modern investigative practice.
