In my new book, Evidence-based Training Methods (ASTD Press), I conclude my review of research on learning styles with the hope that if readers do nothing else, they abandon time and resources devoted to learning styles in favor of other instructional methods which have much more evidence to support them.  In other words, it’s time to drop the learning styles myth.    What do you think about learning styles?  What makes the learning style idea so compelling? 

I’ll devote some future posts to the evidence (or lack thereof) on learning styles that I’ve seen since I wrote my book.

Original Article: http://clarktraining.com/blog/

Huk and Ludwigs (2008) reported best learning of economic principles from lessons that added both goals (a coffee shop scenario) and reflection exercises to a lesson on supply and demand that included a knowledge section and a business simulation compared to a baseline lesson that omitted the goal orientation and the reflection exercise.  Interestingly, lessons with ONLY the goal or ONLY the reflection exercises did not improve learning.  But the combination of both resulted in a 39% increase in post test performance compared to the basic lesson.   The authors suggest that learning is optimized by a combination of scenario-goals that motivate learners AND cognitive learning support – implemented as reflection exercises in this research.  Huk, T &  Ludwigs, S. : Combining cognitive and affective support in order to promote learning. Learning and Instruction (in press in 2008).

Original Article: http://clarktraining.com/blog/

Just back from Training 2010 where I heard Tony O’Driscoll speak and also bought the book! (Learning in 3D from Pfeiffer)  Here’s my first thoughts.  The book is definitely worth the investment – we all need to keep up on the affordances of new technology.  An excellent story leads off  Chapter 2 – I won’t be a spoiler – take a look.   See Brian’s reply to my previous  post for good ideas on how to use virtual worlds in training.

Some bones to pick.  I think a technocentric approach to training can lead us down some unproductive paths – technology per se is never a solution.  To their credit, the authors stress the need to use VW when it makes sense to promote organizational goals.  Social collaboration is one of the sells – BUT  we have very little evidence  on collaboration and learning  in 2D much less 3D.    In Chapter 3 they contrast synchronous e-learning with a virtual 3D lesson.  I think they set up a misleading dichotomy by contrasting a poorly implemented synchronous session with a (better designed?)  VW session.  I’d rather instead read about the strengths and drawbacks to VW.  Most of us are beyond the “Which medium is best?” question.     I also disagree regarding their recommendations for use of token economies to motivate learning in VW or any other medium.   What say you? 

Original Article: http://clarktraining.com/blog/

My colleagues and I are just finishing up the second edition of Graphics for Learning.  One of our goals was to update the research on visuals.  The biggest single category of new research turned out to be evidence on animations.  Here’s the bottom line:

1) To teach how things work – what I call process knowledge a series of still visuals is as good or better than animations

2) To demonstration how to perform tasks involving motion – animations are better than stills

3) Limited evidence on how to demonstrate social skills favors video or animation over text narratives.  I’d love to see a comparison of still visuals versus video versus animation. 

How do you use still versus dynamic visuals in your training products?

Original Article: http://clarktraining.com/blog/