The transfer of knowledge in training often focuses on the “push” of that knowledge.
How do we design training that’s easy to absorb? How do we make it engaging? Which delivery method will people tolerate between meetings, shifts, and deadlines?
As instructional designers and training managers, we can spend a lot of time on interactions, activities, content design, and delivery formats to lift attention and participation. Microlearning and mobile learning are two common examples of this push-based approach.
There’s nothing wrong with that.
But training that aims for behaviour change (apply new skills, stop old habits, follow a process consistently) runs into a predictable problem:
push alone often isn’t enough.
Adults don’t resist learning because they “hate training”. They resist when learning threatens comfort, identity, confidence, or time:
- admitting gaps in performance
- acknowledging someone else has a better approach
- feeling awkward when a new skill doesn’t work immediately
- fearing judgement (from managers, peers, customers)
So as we push learning onto participants, they may push back—quietly, politely, and often invisibly.
That’s why it helps to think about learning as a two-way force:
As we push, the participant must be able to pull.
In this series of articles, we examine three concepts that improve participant-driven (pull) transfer of knowledge in any form of training:
- Relevance
- Context (this article)
- Accountability
Let’s examine training context in the second of three articles in this series.
Training context gives you the ending
Many courses begin with learning outcomes:
“In this module, you will learn…”
That’s fine. But when the training goal is behaviour change, the learner needs more than what they’ll learn.
They need the ending:
- What will be different in my work after this?
- What do I need to do more often, less often, or more consistently?
- How will we know I’m applying this properly?
This is the core shift:
- context of what you will learn is good
- context of how you are expected to change is better
When learners understand the destination, they can self-direct their attention toward what matters. That aligns well with established adult learning principles: adults are more likely to engage when learning is clearly relevant, practical, and connected to real-world needs.
The common gap: “attendance” is not context
Many organisations still treat training like an event:
- attend the workshop
- complete the module
- tick the box
- move on
In a best-case scenario, learners might do pre-reading or think about learning goals. But without a shared understanding of the outcomes they’re expected to demonstrate, participants tend to stay responsive:
They respond to what’s pushed at them.
They might enjoy the content. They might even agree with it.
But when they return to work, the old habits, time pressure, and competing priorities usually win.
Training context turns learners from responsive to active
Imagine a different setup:
Before a sales training workshop, each participant has a short meeting with their manager and agrees on:
- two specific skills they will demonstrate improvement in
- how that improvement will be measured (a sales metric, a quality check, an observable behaviour, a customer outcome)
Now the learner isn’t attending training as a passive recipient.
They arrive active.
They listen differently. They filter the content toward their goals. They steer discussions toward their real situations. They ask better questions. They notice obstacles they’ll face on the job and start planning around them.
This is not a “nice-to-have”. It lines up with a broad evidence base showing that specific, clear goals improve performance and effort, partly by directing attention and increasing persistence.
Context is not motivation. It’s navigation.
A useful way to think about context:
- motivation answers “Do I care?”
- context answers “Where does this go, and what does success look like?”
Motivation can spike during a workshop and disappear on Monday morning.
Context sticks because it creates a map back to the job.
Training context case study
This effect was highlighted in a training exercise for 450 participants completed from March to August 2018 for a large Australian financial services company.
The program included:
- three participant modules
- one matching manager module
The manager module focused on helping managers define desired outcomes, changes, and behaviours with their staff.
- 65% of managers completed the manager module
- where managers completed it, staff training reported an 89% success rate with on-the-job activities associated with the training
- where managers did not complete it (and staff didn’t receive that context), success dropped to 48%
When you have agreed on a destination to get to, you tend to map out a path to get there.
What “good context” looks like in modern training
Training context doesn’t require a long strategy document or another committee.
It requires clarity in five places.
1) A specific behaviour outcome
Not “improve customer service.”
Instead:
- “Use the 4-step escalation script before transferring a call.”
- “Complete the hazard check in the first 5 minutes of shift start.”
- “Record advice notes in the CRM within 24 hours.”
2) A real performance signal
Something you can actually observe or measure:
- QA checks
- time-to-competency
- error rates / rework
- compliance completion + comprehension checks
- manager observation
- a simple “show me” demonstration
3) A defined “when”
Context fails when behaviour change is vague.
Tie the behaviour to a moment:
- “On your next client meeting…”
- “Before you enter the site…”
- “When a parent raises a concern…”
- “When you’re unsure, do X before Y…”
4) A shared agreement (learner + manager)
This is where context becomes real.
Even 10 minutes helps:
- What are we focusing on?
- What will you apply first?
- What support will you need?
- What will I look for?
Research on training transfer consistently highlights that the work environment—including support and reinforcement—plays a major role in whether training sticks on the job.
5) A follow-up checkpoint
Context without follow-up can still fade.
A checkpoint can be lightweight:
- a quick manager check-in
- a short reflection prompt
- a “show me” task in the system
- a peer review
You don’t need heavy process. You need a moment where the learner is expected to demonstrate change.
A practical framework: “Context in 15 minutes”
If you want something your managers can actually do, here’s a simple approach that works across industries.
Step 1: Define the destination (5 minutes)
Ask the learner:
- “What’s one thing in your role that this training should improve?”
- “What would ‘better’ look like next week?”
Then convert it into one clear behaviour.
Step 2: Define proof (5 minutes)
Pick one way you’ll know it’s happening:
- a metric
- a checklist
- a customer outcome
- an observation
Step 3: Define support (5 minutes)
Ask:
- “What will get in the way?”
- “What do you need from me to apply this?”
This step matters because “context” isn’t only what to do—it’s also how to succeed in your real conditions.
Examples of context that work (by industry)
Financial services (advice + compliance)
Instead of: “Complete the compliance refresher.”
Context: “After this module, you’ll update your file notes using the new template for every client interaction this month, and I’ll review two files on Friday.”
Logistics (speed + safety)
Instead of: “Do the WHS module.”
Context: “From tomorrow’s shift, you’ll use the pre-start checklist before touching equipment. Your supervisor will sign off after observing it twice.”
Early learning (quality + consistency)
Instead of: “Child protection training.”
Context: “After this, you’ll follow the escalation steps for concerns and document it in the system the same day. We’ll run a quick scenario in team meeting next week.”
Professional services (client experience + risk)
Instead of: “Cyber awareness training.”
Context: “From now on, you’ll use the secure sharing method for all client documents. We’ll audit compliance monthly and coach any gaps.”
Why context matters even more now
In 2018, the biggest training challenge was often access, format, and consistency.
In 2026, many teams have plenty of content—internal docs, vendor libraries, AI-written explainers, endless “modules”.
The bigger challenge is:
turning content into consistent on-the-job behaviour.
Context is one of the most reliable ways to bridge that gap, because it connects training to:
- real moments of work
- real expectations
- real measurement
- real support
It helps people pull the learning into the job, instead of leaving it in the module.
A practical next step
If you’re exploring platforms: Tribal Habits is built for exactly this kind of custom, workplace-specific training (especially when you don’t have a big L&D team). Book a demo and we’ll show you how teams keep training relevant without starting over every time.
This article originally appeared in Training & Development magazine, December 2018 Vol. 45 No. 4, published by the Australian Institute of Training and Development. It has since been updated to ensure the guidance remains relevant for today’s workplace training environment.
FAQ
What’s the difference between training context and training relevance?
Relevance makes learners feel “this is for me.” Context makes learners understand “this is what I’m expected to do differently, and how we’ll know it worked.” They work best together.
Do managers really need to be involved?
Not in a heavy way—but some involvement matters. Even a short pre-brief and a post-check improves clarity and follow-through, and transfer research consistently highlights the role of the work environment and support.
What if we can’t measure behaviour change easily?
Use “observable proof”: a checklist, a screenshot, a short demonstration, a quick manager observation, or a reflective prompt tied to a real task.
Is this only for leadership or soft skills training?
No. Context is often easier for process training, compliance, systems training, and safety—because behaviours and evidence are clearer.
What’s the fastest way to add context to an existing module?
Add two things to the beginning and end:
- “After this, you will…” (one behaviour)
- “This week, you will…” (one application task + proof)
Further Reading
- Enhancing Training Knowledge Transfer: Accountability, Relevance, and Context
- Improving Knowledge Transfer Through Training Relevance
- Where Will Your Training Content Come From?
- Working with Multiple Subject Matter Experts
- Training Accountability: The Real Driver of Knowledge Transfer
- How much does online learning cost?
