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?

Semantics is an academic's pastime. I'm usually more interested in action than talk. So let's boil it down. As learning professionals, what are we really trying to get at? The most effective learning possible, right? That should make it pretty simple, then.

While some read for entertainment, most learning content isn't entertaining enough to keep you awake. So that leaves out reading as the most effective method for learning. But let's face it: even if it's called e-learning, if I'm not actively engaged, it's just e-reading.

The best learning, all things considered, has always been learning by doing. Put another way, we're talking about practice. And practice makes perfect, so why not give learners a perfect place to practice? If two plus two is four, we're talking about a simulation as a safe place to practice.

Practicing on your own isn't always optimum. On the other hand, not being in front of others, and working at your own pace, can be the perfect combination for learning by doing. So, online simulations, or immersive learning simulations as some like to say, can provide a real advantage.

In our experience at w/, two things make learning simulations more immersive: valued outcomes that can be used right away, and avatars the learner interacts with and learns from.

There's nothing like the "ah-ha" of learning something new and using it to get ahead. That's what I mean by a valued outcome. And avatars...well, they make a simulation human. I mean, I'd rather have a relationship with an avatar than text on a screen. And unequivocally, we humans are wired at the factory, to work and play and learn most naturally from within relationships.