Almost five years ago I completed a speed awareness course and wrote about it. Last week I had to do another one.

My first post was positive; I thought facilitating that course must be one of the tougher jobs in learning. Ten people who would have preferred not to be there were brought together because of something they’d done wrong. But the facilitator recognised that and made the session relevant. I thought I knew what I was doing, and I still got a lot from it.

This time, I found it harder to engage. The information was familiar, and the facilitator had a particular phrase he repeated every minute or so. Once I’d noticed it, I found it incredibly difficult to stop noticing it. What had previously felt like useful learning now felt like more mandatory training.

But there’s an uncomfortable point in writing that down. I knew the information, and I was back on the course. My familiarity with the content hadn’t prevented the behaviour that had put me there.

That doesn’t tell us how much difference the first course made over the intervening years. It does make “I already know this” a less complete objection than I might like. Equally, it leaves a question for the people designing the course: if someone knows the information already, what do they need from attending again?

Thinking about mandatory training at work, someone who doesn’t understand a requirement may need an explanation. Someone who understands it but doesn’t consistently act on it needs help examining what happens between knowing and doing. That might involve habits, competing demands, the conditions they work in or the choices they make. We need to understand how those factors contribute, rather than assume that another explanation will address the issue.

I’m responsible for how I drive. A more engaging facilitator wouldn’t change that. But if the purpose of requiring me to attend again is to change what I do, the course needs to help me examine why knowing wasn’t enough.