Time After Learning ~ Approximate Retention
20 minutes ~60%
1 hour ~44%
1 day ~34%
1 week ~25%
31 days ~21%

Modern studies have recreated this effect and confirm the pattern: without reinforcement, most learning fades fast. The often-quoted “we forget 90% in 30 days” is exaggerated, but the principle holds. If training doesn’t include strategies for retention or transfer to real life, it won’t last.

A transfer problem, not a content problem

Corporate training is a $340–361 billion global industry. Yet according to ATD, learning hours per employee have dropped from 34 in 2020 to just 13.7 in most recent reports. At the same time, cost per hour has risen by 34%.

We’re spending more to do less. And what does get delivered often doesn’t translate into action. Saks and Belcourt found that one year after training, only 34% of employees still apply what they learned.
That’s not a learning issue. It’s a transfer issue.

Knowing vs doing: why information isn’t enough

Organisations often equate learning with exposure to information. But Stanford researchers Pfeffer and Sutton describe a persistent “knowing-doing gap”: people may know what to do, but that doesn’t mean they’ll do it.

It’s not laziness. It’s biology.

Declarative memory (facts, concepts) is stored in the hippocampus. Procedural memory (skills, habits) lives in other parts of the brain and forms through repetition and practice. You can’t transfer behaviour with a PowerPoint.

When people are overloaded with new concepts, their working memory gets clogged. There’s no space left to make sense of the information, let alone apply it. Van Merriënboer and Sweller’s research shows that even realistic tasks can overwhelm novices unless carefully designed - it’s called the cognitive overload effect.

What we ignore about adult learners

Malcolm Knowles’ research into adult learning tells us what many of us already know: adults learn best when it’s practical, relevant, and connected to what they already do. But corporate training often violates these principles. It’s imposed from a senior colleague, often abstract and it’s usually disconnected from people’s real work. The exact conditions the CDC suggests avoiding: “Adult learners will resist learning when they feel others are imposing information, ideas, or actions on them.” We need people to discover things themselves and with their co-workers. That’s why our simulations are always played with and against teams of colleagues - not computers.

What actually works: active, experiential learning

The evidence for active learning is strong. A meta-analysis by Freeman et al. covering 225 studies found it improves outcomes and cuts failure rates by more than 50%.

Simulation-based learning takes this further. A review by the AHRQ of over 600 studies found clear improvements in knowledge, behaviour, and outcomes. In aviation, simulation training has become essential for safety. Pilots don’t practise on real planes.

Business simulation research echoes this. Meta-analyses show simulations improve interpersonal skills and self-awareness, and when paired with reinforcement and follow-up, the impact increases significantly. Wilson Learning found this could boost effectiveness by 186%.

Leaders are noticing that e-learns alone aren’t cutting it. CIPD data shows alignment between L&D and business goals has dropped - from 77% in 2021 to 67% in 2024.

A strategic opportunity

The forgetting curve is not inevitable. Spaced repetition and retrieval practice improve retention. But more importantly, lasting behaviour change depends on targeting the right memory systems, and designing learning that reflects how people actually learn.

Experiential, simulation-based training works not because it’s trendy, but because it:
- Creates safe environments to practise
- Builds procedural memory
- Respects cognitive limits
- Connects learning to real work

For an industry investing over $340 billion each year, the question isn’t whether we should do more training. It's whether we're doing the kind that works, that changes learners' behaviour, and improves business results.

The forgetting curve is real. But it’s beatable. If you’re rethinking how to learn, check out some of our simulations here.

Sources referenced in this article:
Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology.
Murre, J.M.J., & Dros, J. (2015). Replication and Analysis of Ebbinghaus' Forgetting Curve. PLoS ONE.
ATD (2025). State of the Industry Report.
Saks, A.M., & Belcourt, M. (2006). An investigation of training activities and transfer of training in organizations. Human Resource Management.
Brinkerhoff, R.O. (2008). The Success Case Method.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R.I. (2000). The Knowing-Doing Gap. Harvard Business School Press.
Poldrack, R.A. et al. (2001). Interactions between the declarative and procedural memory systems. NeuroImage.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load Theory.
Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning. Educational Psychology Review.
Knowles, M.S. (1984). The Adult Learner.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Principles of Adult Learning.
Freeman, S. et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS.
AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). Simulation Training Overview.
Wilson Learning. Learning Transfer and Business Impact.
Josh Bersin. Industry commentary on corporate learning.
Harvard Business Review. The Problem with Corporate Training.
CIPD (2024). Learning and Development Annual Survey Report.