There is a remarkable lack of collaboration in the field of education and learning. Unlike other disciplines like medicine, economics, and technology, the Learning and Development industry has yet to develop a synergetic global pool of talent that drives innovation and real change.

The inferences from neuroscientific research, when adapted, are usually taken literally. The mind is a complex institution and is highly contextual and unpredictable. Any general or individual test findings must be regarded as biological predispositions and not as deterministic traits.

Despite the ample opportunities for adaptation of learning programs for individual learning behavior, background, and capacity, the efforts made to individualize learning experiences are scarce and mostly superficial.

Strategically spaced learning and assessment capsules are found to be instrumental in embedding any skill in long-term memory. However, most training programs are designed as one-time events, that too with poor assessment techniques, failing both remembering and recall mechanisms.

A lot of this snailing is due to poor and inadequate evaluation practices and the non-availability of data points. Shallow analytic tools like Likert scales, smile sheets, and questionnaires about learner satisfaction yield no substantive directions for corrective actions and design improvisation.

The contributions from scientific research and insights provided by learners, trainers, and the learning industry think tanks have mostly gone unexploited by formal education. The adoption and investment by organizational sponsors in all that digital and evolved learning and experience design offers has been rather slow and inhibited.