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? 

Ruth Clark

Seeing Avatar brought to mind how rapidly 3D technology is evolving and how it might be used effectively in training.   Take a look at the new book: Learning in 3D by Karl Kapp and Tony O’Driscol.  I have not read the book but attended a great webinar by Karl on use of virtual worlds for training.  As with all new technologies, we will use and abuse virtual worlds until we figure out where it really makes sense.  A lot of research on visuals suggests that less is more and I suspect that many virtual world applications can add mental load for no good learning advantage.

Are you using virtual worlds?  How’s it going?

My colleague Chopeta Lyons 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?

Everything I know about blogs I learned from Julia and Julia.  But for a long time I wanted to find a way to communicate research in a more timely and interactive manner than articles or books.

Here are my own blog guidelines: 1) keep it short 2) keep it focused on research of relevance to workplace learning professionals.

I hope this monologue will become a discussion so we can all learn from one another.   What research questions are of interest to you?