For forty years, learningresearch has told us that we remember just 5% to 10% of what we hear or see,after just three days. And it always follows we retain something like 70% ofwhat we practice. That's improvement by a factor of 10...and doesn't that makelearning outcomes 10 times more cost effective?
Yet, of the three majorpushes within elearning these days, only one puts this astounding fact to gooduse. The three options I'm talking about are: social elearning, rapidelearning, and immersive learning simulations.
Social elearning tends tobe more about a different way to learn or introduce learning content. It'sabout collaboration and sharing, and it seeks to capture and share front linelessons without all the energy, time and expense of formally developed content.With this in mind, social elearning more or less falls out of the retentiondiscussion.
Rapid elearning is economydriven. It may be sold as some sort of step up, but one-size-fits-all templatesand game show contrivances are hardly advances. They're more like puttinglipstick on a pig, at least where retention is concerned. Let's get real here,remembering where a fact is on a game board so that you can match it withsomething else isn't the kind practice that the research is talking about.
Immersive learningsimulations, on the other hand, take learners into the gray areas of a subject,allowing them to discern subtle differences and experience the consequences oftheir decisions. In short: real, effective practice.
Simulations take longer tofor an instructional designer to create. They take longer to produce, too.There's no question, then, that immersive learning simulations are moreexpensive, on their face. But on the backside, when there's an opportunity for10 times the results, where do you feel better about spending your money? Whichresult would you rather be held accountable for...rapid elearning, or effectiveelearning?