It has been over three years since I offered $1,000 to anyone who could demonstrate that utilizing learning styles improved learning outcomes. Click here for the original challenge. So far, no one has even come close. For all the talk about learning styles over the last 15 years, we might expect that I was at risk of quickly losing my money. Let me be clear, my argument is not that people don't have different learning styles, learning preferences, or learning skills. My argument is that for real-world instructional-development situations, learning styles is an ineffective and inefficient waste of resources that is unlikely to produce meaningful results. Let me leave you with the original challenge: "Can an e-learning program that utilizes learning-style information outperform an e-learning program that doesn't utilize such information by 10% or more on a realistic test of learning, even it is allowed to cost up to twice as much to build?" The challenge is still on.

Randy Olson has written a book to help scientists communicate better. He argues that scientists need to do a number of things to better connect with their audience--especially their lay audience (their non-scientific audience). That they need to take their complicated information and make it understandable to real people. Isn't that what we do as instructional designers? Yes, so maybe we have something to learn from his messages. You can check out a radio interview below. You can check out a blurb from his book below (scroll down when you get there). www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113832764 You can buy the book at Amazon:

If social cognition comes down to just two dimensions, Warmth and Competence, might our learners also rely on these two categories in deciding how much to engage in our learning interventions? AND, if so, do we need to ensure that all our learning events exude both warmth and competence?I got thinking about this while reading a review of Susan Fiske's keynote for the Association for Psychological Sciences. Susan Fiske, who was awarded the 2009 William James Fellow Award, is one of the world's leading social psychologists, often working with Shelley E. Taylor. As Jesse Erwin's review states, "...after years of research, it looks like social cognition [how we make decisions about other people] can be boiled down into judgments of two key elements: warmth and competence."As Erwin suggests, we might imagine this in a 2x2 matrix (my drawing): Boiling it down to two dimensions might have provided evolutionary value in that people often had to make quick decisions about who to trust, who to partner with, etc. Having a simple framework might have allowed quick decision making, enabling survival. If human beings are programmed to think in this way, might this programming affect learning? Certainly, learners evaluate trainers in the same way they evaluate other humans. When I was a young leadership trainer, I learned how to emphasize my credibility in a stealthy way so as not to appear as if I was bragging. I upped my credibility without lowering my warmth factor. Good trainers boost their warmth index by appropriately using humor, telling stories, exuding respect for learners, listening, giving others a chance to speak, etc. Good trainers emphasize their credibility by surreptitiously mentioning their experiences, citing clients they've worked with, having great content, citing research, being organized, etc. Clearly, we ought to design facilitated training with warmth and competence in mind.But what about non-facilitated learning interventions like CBT's, asynchronous e-learning programs, etc.? I think warmth and competence play a central role there as well. One of the biggest e-learning mistakes is to forget to focus on the warmth dimension. Off the cuff, I would estimate that 95% of all e-learning programs are almost completely devoid of humanity. They lack a human connection. Research lends support here as well. A more personalized writing style (using the second person instead of the third person for example) has been shown to improve learning engagement and results. Using people-based learning guides (a talking head, an avatar, etc.) has been found to improve learning for some learners. The secret here is that the learning guide can't be seen as goofy or too game-like, hey, because that reduces credibility!!Based on reviewing lots of e-learning programs, here's some quick advice on ensuring more warmth: Write in a personalize style Don't present too much material. Keep material particularly relevant, and emphasize the relevance. Provide realistic situations for learners to engage with. Use audio--it really helps in adding emotional depth. Maintain reasonably high production values. Show the learner how the program will help them. Be honest with the learner about what it will really take to put what they're learning into practice. Consider using a personalizing agent to talk directly to the learner (as long as it maintains credibility). Pilot test your e-learning and measure your e-learning so you can add warmth if needed. Here's what the warmth-competence matrix might look like for learning interventions: This warmth-credibility hypothesis (regarding learning interventions) is certainly worth testing. In the meantime, based on tangential lines of research and based on my review of hundreds of learning programs, I'd bet this simple formulation is worth following. From the point of practicality--and evolutionary survival--sometimes simple is better. The review of Susan Fiske's keynote can be found in the Association for Psychological Sciences, Volume 22, Number 8, edition of the Observer, Jesse Erwin author.

Last year I was asked by Michael Allen--one of our industry's most influential creators and most successful entrepreneurs--to contribute a chapter to his first e-Learning Annual, which Pfeiffer had urged him to manage and edit. Michael introduced my chapter as follows: "In this article, one of the learning and performance field’s leadingvisionaries looks back on his twenty-two years in the field with both loveand regret, while looking forward to the future by challenging all of us inthe field who see ourselves as learning-and-performance professionals.Dr. Thalheimer’s challenge is simple. He asks every person in the fieldto understand the forces that control their thinking and influence theirdecision making. It’s as if the author wants to say: the unexaminedprofession is not worth having."  I'm still thrilled to hear Sir Michael call me a visionary--though I'm sure he was talking about hallucinations of some sort. Because the article still resonates for me, I thought I'd share it with you.Download We_Are_Professionals_by_Will_Thalheimer_ I encourage you to take a look at the whole book. Michael Allen’s 2008 e-Learning Annual does a great job covering the historic and institutional foundations of the learning-technology field--with chapters from more than 20 luminaries who have been at the heart of the learning field for a long time, including folks like Thiagi, David Merrill, Allison Rossett, and Greg Kearsley, and so many more. Here are some of my conclusions in the chapter: Our graduate schools preparetechnicians, not thoughtfulscientist-practitioners whounderstand learning, thinkcritically, and build wisdom overtime. We don’t measure the outcome ofour work in ways that enable usto build effective feedback loopsand make improvements that willlead to better learning, on-the-jobperformance, and business results. The work pressures we face(for example, Internet-inducedinformation overload and businessdemands for cheaper, fasterresults)—combined with ourtendency toward professionalarrogance—don’t predisposeus to keep learning, to test ourconjectures, to build a rich andcomplex knowledge base over time. Our trade associations, magazines,and conferences provide uswith information that sells, notinformation that necessarily tellsthe truth of how we should betterdesign our products and services. Our consultants and vendors area large source of our information,and we tend to think uncriticallyabout their offerings. Learning-and-performanceresearch is not utilized when itmight provide substantial benefits. Industry research is severelyflawed, but we rely on it anyway. Contests, awards, and best-of listsgrab our attention and distortour thinking about what is mostimportant. Okay, those were the list of our failures. I also add a list that begs for hope for our profession.What do you think of our current practices?Of our future?

Scientists may have found how exercise induces calm--and how it may help people in stressful situations perform better.Check out this article from the NY Times...Given that lots of us are stressed these days--and even the relaxed folks have to occasionally make a big stressful presentation, etc.--enabling people to exercise might give them a competitive advantage.

Starting today, December 1, 2009, bloggers who review products will have to fully disclose their ties and reveal any free products they receive. See article in NY Times announcing the ruling.Within the last year, I was sent a learning product worth over $500, presumably to try to entice me to use it and give it a good review. That product is still in its shrink wrap. I've also had several inquiries over the years about whether I'd be willing to review a learning intervention and say nice things. I won't make such a deal.Do you ever wonder which workplace learning blogs are slanting their reviews? Me too.Anyway, today such incentivized bias is supposed to stop.

I've got a file in my email from Indian e-learning companies who have contacted me because I am an important decision maker at Work-Learning Research, Inc. (my research and consulting practice). I must have gotten emails from over 50 Indian e-Learning companies. Almost enough so that I have begun to feel a deep personal relationship. Perhaps this is why I read this article in the New York Times with such interest. It says that Indian companies are afraid they will remain the low-cost provider and they will fail to innovate.Well, I wonder if this is true in the learning-and-performance field. I'm not an industry analyst so I'm sure I don't see the big picture here, but the following data points come to mind: Almost all of my emails from Indian e-learning companies highlight their cost advantage. My efforts over the years to get consulting or workshop business with Indian e-learning companies has been fruitless. If they wanted to differentiate their work by investing in research-based insights, you'd think at least one Indian e-learning firm would have attempted to warm themselves in the glow of my wisdom. WINK. WINK. Maybe my marketing might is poorly directed. I have heard some Indian e-learning company employees talking about Indian e-learning companies taking over the U.S. marketplace within the next 10 years... Many U.S. vendors I have talked with who off-shored their development work to India talked about poor instructional design. Of course, they might just be ticked off at the price competition or worried about their jobs. NIIT bought one of our most premium brands, Cognitive Arts, many years ago now, but such mergers don't seem to be trending up. What's going on? If you have an idea--or just some more data points--leave a comment below.Until they begin to hire me, I won't believe they are truly ready to innovate. I can be reached in the U. S. at my contact information. SMILE.Seriously though, anybody know who's keeping tabs on the Indian e-learning invasion? Anybody know what's going on?

Is this effective e-learning?Click here to see e-learning using only audio and photographs.Sure, it's missing interactivity, retrieval practice, and a focus on application; but it does hint at the emotional power that can be created with good simple design.

It is not always enough to know something. Often people must respond immediately to circumstances. Often they must respond under stress and distraction. To be able to do this, they need to develop a cognitive link between situational cues and action. On January 9th 2009, firefighter Robert O’Neill was at the wheel of a 22-ton fire truck as it headed down a steep street in Boston. When O’Neill attempted to apply the brakes, nothing happened. As the truck gained speed heading straight for a large brick wall, O’Neill made frantic attempts to pump the brakes and shift into another gear—ultimately shifting into neutral. His efforts went to no avail and the truck crashed through the brick wall into an apartment building injuring several children in an afterschool program and killing his colleague, firefighter Lieutenant Kevin M. Kelley who was riding beside O’Neill in the truck’s passenger seat. Photo from Boston Globe Story After an 11-month investigation, District Attorney Daniel Conley reported that O’Neill received "limited classroom instruction and no driver training in the proper use of air brakes in downhill and emergency circumstances." What’s really tragic is that O’Neill’s actions in that time of panic may have actually made things worse. As the Boston Globe reported: The driver did not know to check brake pressure before he got behind the wheel that day and then, when the brakes failed, did not know how to engage secondary braking systems. Instead, he pumped the brakes, releasing any remaining air pressure from the brake system, and put the truck into neutral, preventing the secondary brakes from engaging. Many things might have prevented this tragedy. The truck could have been better maintained. A job aid that forced drivers to do routine safety check might have been used to ensure brake pressure. Management oversight might have prompted the drivers to actually engage safety routines. Training that helped drivers understand how air brakes worked might have helped—just before the accident the driver turned the truck around in a parking lot releasing air pressure in the braking system. Finally, the driver could have been trained to spontaneously remember what do when facing such a situation. Ideally, when someone is in an emergency situation, the cues from that situation ought to remind them of what to do. As learning professionals we want to help our learners engage in spontaneous remembering. To do this, we need to help our learners make links between situational cues and actions. It can help to teach these links, but it is even better to have learners practice these links. Research on general context-alignment effects shows the benefits of making such links (for reviews see Bjork & Richardson-Klavehn, 1989; Smith, 1988; Smith & Vela, 2001; Eich, 1980; Roediger & Guynn, 1996; Davies, 1986). Research on retrieval practice shows us the benefits of retrieval practice in automating such responding (for reviews on retrieval practice see Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a; Pashler, Rohrer, Cepeda, & Carpenter, 2007; Bjork, 1988; Crooks, 1988). Finally, recent research on implementation intentions shows how powerful it can be to help learners link situational cues to action (for review see Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). If firefighter O’Neill had been properly trained, when he found himself careening down the street with inadequate brakes, the situation would have reminded him to apply steady pressure on the brakes and engage the secondary braking system. What makes this situation even sadder is that firefighters typically have lots of time between emergencies to engage in training. Even if a high-fidelity simulation was too expensive, a simple e-learning program that simulated driving emergencies might have worked to create cognitive links sufficient to create spontaneous remembering.   Research Bjork, R. A. (1988). Retrieval practice and the maintenance of knowledge. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues, Vol. 1., Memory in Everyday Life (pp. 396-401). NY: Wiley. Bjork, R. A., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (1989). On the puzzling relationship between environmental context and human memory. In C. Izawa (Ed.) Current Issues in Cognitive Processes: The Tulane Floweree Symposium on Cognition (pp. 313-344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438-481. Davies, G. (1986). Context effects in episodic memory: A review. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 6, 157-174. Eich, J. E. (1980). The cue dependent nature of state dependent retrieval. Memory and Cognition, 8, 157-173. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. Pashler, H., Rohrer, D., Cepeda, N. J., & Carpenter, S. K. (2007). Enhancing learning and retarding forgetting: Choices and consequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 187-193. Roediger, H. L., III, & Guynn, M. J. (1996). Retrieval processes. In E. L. Bjork & R. A. Bjork (eds.), Memory (pp. 197-236). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Roediger, H.L. & Karpicke, J.D. (2006a). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181-210. Smith, S. M. (1988). Environmental context-dependent memory. In G. M. Davies & D. M. Thomson (eds.) Memory in Context: Context in Memory (pp. 13-34), Chichester, UK: Wiley. Smith, S. M., & Vela, E. (2001). Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 203-220. Story of the accident: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/01/fire_engine_cra.html Story of the accident investigation: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/12/11/poor_training_cited_in_crash/ Photo from Massachusetts AFL-CIO website Lieutenant Kevin M. Kelley (Killed in Fire Truck Accident)

Training Magazine is looking for nominations for the Best Young Trainer Award (have to be under 40). Let's nominate someone who utilizes research-based recommendations--and does it with practical wisdom.If you know someone, nominate them using this link.