Astleitner argued that emotions affect learning, and that instructional designers therefore need to optimize learners’ emotional states during the learning process. However, there is limited empirical support available for this approach. Most recently, Moreno and Mayer proposed an extension to the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning that incorporates motivational and metacognitive factors as mediators of multimedia learning (Moreno & Mayer, 2007). We base our approach to the impact of emotions on multimedia learning on the facilitation effect described above. Based on research that found a crucial effect of positive emotions on a variety of cognitive processes, including information processing, communication processing, negotiation procession,decision-making processing, category sorting tasks and even the creative problem-solving process (Isen &Baron, 1991; Erez & Isen, 2002; Konradt et al., 2003), we hypothesize that these effects will also result in enhanced learning.
Baby-face bias: Illustrations and characters in the positive design material were designed as babyface-like characters to induce baby-face bias. According to this effect (Lorenz & Generale, 1950), people or things with round features, large eyes, small noses, short chins are perceived as baby-like, and they induce baby-like personality attributes such as innocence, honesty, and helplessness, which induce positive affect in the learner.
The next generation of employees will expect to be “edutained” they have grown up with a much higher exposure to visual medium than pre- Gen XYZ and melinialsWhat kind of emotions can be conveyed? Humor, fear, excitement, anger, frustration,
Training simulations typically utilize an array of multimedia features to conveyinformation through different sensory modes (e.g., images, sound) and to create a realistic andrelevant context (Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, in press; Mayer, 2001). For example, simulationsare now incorporating video game quality graphics and many offer a suite of supplementarymultimedia learning materials (e.g., case studies, reference materials, tutorials, videos) on aCD-ROM or online (Summers, 2004). Stories and narratives are also increasingly being used tospark learners’ interest, foster greater effort, and help guide the learner through the simulatedexperience (Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, in press; Fiore, Johnston, & McDaniel, 2007). Inaddition, the content covered by simulations is becoming increasingly specialized, with newapplications focusing on topics such as customer service, supply chain management, andconsultative selling. It is important, however, to recognize that more or richer information doesnot necessarily facilitate better learning (Brown & Ford, 2002). The key is selecting a mode ofinformation presentation that will optimize learner’s ability to understand and make sense out ofthe material (Mayer & Anderson, 1992). For example, when training basic declarativeknowledge, multimedia features such as videos, graphics, and sound, may be no more effective than simple text, cost considerably more, are less user friendly, and may extend training time.However, for more complex and adaptive skills, the multimedia content offered by simulationsmay be critical to creating a meaningful learning experience (Kozlowski & Bell, 2007).
The goal here is not to replicate the actual performance environment, but rather to prompt the essential underlying psychological processes relevant to key performance characteristics in the real-world setting (Kozlowski & DeShon, 2004). Higher levels of immersion, such as that found in simulations, have thepotential to enhance learners’ feelings of presence, or the perception of actually being in aparticular environment (Steele-Johnson & Hyde, 1997). High fidelity features, such as three dimensionalrepresentation of content and motion/action, offer physical fidelity, which immersestrainees in a realistic experience and exposes them to important environmental characteristics(Schiflett et al., 2004). At high levels of immersion, the system can also react to trainee inputs,creating a symbiotic relationship between the user and the technology. In essence,psychological fidelity provides a basic foundation for learning, and physical fidelity offers thecontextual richness that embeds important cues and contingencies into the instructionalexperience (Kozlowski & DeShon, 2004).The high level of immersion possible with simulations may help engage learners andstimulate greater effort, particularly among younger students (15-24 year olds) who have grownup on the Internet and expect rich, interactive, and even “playful” learning environments (Proserpio & Gioia, 2007). Simulations can also immerse trainees in practice environments thatmay be too dangerous in the real world, allow trainees to practice when actual equipmentcannot be employed, or expose trainees to situations that occur infrequently in reality. Perhapsmore importantly, the experiential learning environment created by simulations is critical forenabling trainees to experience emotional arousal during performance episodes, develop anunderstanding of the relationships among the different components of the system, and alsointegrate new information with their existing knowledge (Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, in press;Keys & Wolfe, 1990; Zantow, Knowlton, & Sharp, 2005)Interactivity. The third category, interactivity or collaboration potential, capturescharacteristics that can influence the potential degree and type of interaction between users ofthe system, between trainers and trainees, and, potentially, between teams or collaborativelearning groups (Kozlowski & Bell, 2007). In addition, interactivity is critical for ensuring the realism of team or collaborativeperformance contexts (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe,1995). The technology must offer a level of information richness capable of supporting the high degree of interactivity inherent in collaborative learning and performance environments (Salas etal., 2002).Increasingly simulations are enhancing the level of interactivity through the use ofcharacters and virtual agents that simulate competitors, colleagues, or customers. As anexample of the use of characters in simulation-based training, a customer service simulationmay present the trainee with several customers who have questions about the store’smerchandise (Summers, 2004). Based on a pre-programmed decision tree, the learner’sinteraction with the customer characters determines their responses. The trainee learnscustomer service skills by iterating through a series of decision situations and responses. Ascompared to characters, virtual agents are not guided by a predesigned structure (e.g., decisiontree) but rather have the ability to determine their own behavior.Communication. Finally, it is important to consider features that influencecommunication richness or bandwidth, which determines the extent to which users cancommunicate via verbal and non-verbal means. One advantage of conventional instruction is that it collocates trainers and learners, which allows for face-to-face interaction among theseparties. This enables the expert trainer to evaluate learners’ progress in real time and providenecessary feedback and guidance. It also allows rich interaction and information sharing amonglearners. In distributed learning, however, communication channels, if available, are oftendegraded. Distributed learning systems often rely on asynchronous (i.e., temporally lagged)communication and limit communication to text or audio, which prevent dynamic interaction andthe transfer of non-verbal cues. When rich interaction is critical for information sharing,providing instructional support, or creating realistic collaborative performance environments,communication bandwidth represents an important consideration in the design of distributedlearning systems (e.g., Faux & Black-Hughes, 2000; Huff, 2000; Kozlowski & Bell, 2007; Meisel& Marx, 1999; Wisher & Curnow, 1999).Advanced training simulations, such as the distributed mission training (DMT) systemsused by the military, incorporate 2-way, synchronous communication to allow individuals andteams to interact in real-time (Kozlowski & Bell, 2007). In addition, advances have been madein terms of learner’s communication with the simulation system itself. In the past, learnerstypically communicated with the system by selecting statements from multiple-choice lists.However, some simulations now utilize natural language processing (NLP) technology whichallows users to communicate with the simulation by typing a sentence. An extension of NLP isvoice recognition technology (VRT), which allows verbal communication with the simulation.This technology is increasingly being used in telemarketing and selling simulations (Summers,2004).
Managing Development CostsLeveraging learner control. As training simulations are increasingly delivered on demand,trainees are being asked to engage in learning without direct involvement of aninstructor or teacher. The result is trainees are being given greater control over their ownlearning. As Summers (2004, p. 228) states, “Learners must make time for learning and applythemselves without the benefit of a class, mandatory homework, or other motivationalpressures.” In addition, learners must manage their learning process, including monitoring andevaluating their progress and using that information to make effective learning decisions, suchas what and how much to study and practice.Research suggests that learner control can yieldseveral benefits. For instance, it enables motivated learners to customize the learningenvironment to increase their mastery of the content domain (Kraiger & Jerden, 2007). Inaddition, learner control can induce active learning and allow learners to generate relationshipsamong new concepts and their existing knowledge (Reid, Zhang, & Chen, 2003; Zantow et al.,2005).Despite its potential benefits, greater learner control is an important challenge facingsimulation-based training designs. Specifically, significant research suggests that individualsSimulation-Based Training CAHRS WP08-13Cornell UniversityCenter for Advanced Human Resource Studies Page 17 of 33often do not make effective use of the control provided by technology-based training (Bell &Kozlowski, 2002a; DeRouin, Fritzsche, & Salas, 2004; Reeves, 1993). Trainees often do notaccurately assess their current knowledge level, do not devote enough effort to training, andmake poor decisions, such as terminating study and practice early and skipping over importantlearning opportunities, resulting in deficiencies in performance (Brown, 2001; Ely & Sitzmann,2007). As Blake and Scanlon (2007, p. 2) state, these findings suggest, “Simulations do notwork on their own, there needs to be some structuring of the students’ interactions with thesimulation to increase effectiveness.Understanding individual differences. In recent years, there has been a growingrecognition of the powerful influence that individual differences in ability, prior experience, anddisposition (i.e., personality) can have on how trainees approach, interpret, and respond totraining. Moreover, it has been suggested that individual differences may be especially criticalin technology-based training environments. Brown (2001, p. 276), for example, argues, “Incomputer-based training, the learner generally does not experience the external pressures of alive instructor and of peers completing the same activities. Thus, individual differences shouldbe critical determinants of training effectiveness.” Accordingly, it is important to understand howvarious individual differences interact with the design of simulations to influence overalleffectiveness. DeRouin et al. (2004) suggest that trainees who are high in ability, priorexperience, and motivation may benefit the most from the learner control offered by manyexperiential training simulations.High ability trainees, for instance, have sufficient cognitive resources to allow them to focus attention on learning activities, such as monitoring theirlearning progress and developing effective learning strategies, without detracting from theiracquisition of important knowledge and skills (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). Similarly, priorachievement or knowledge in the content domain may help reduce cognitive load, therebyallowing trainees to better integrate new concepts and make effective learning decisions (Lee,Plass, & Homer, 2006). Some emerging research suggests that there may also be specific individual differencesthat relate to trainees’ aptitude or preference for simulation-based training. Anderson (2005), forinstance, suggests that individuals’ prior computer experience and ability to use technology mayserve as antecedents to a positive experience with a training simulation. There is also someresearch that suggests that males and females may behave differently online, with malestending to exhibit more assertive and adversarial computer-mediated communication thanfemales (Prinsen, Volman, & Terwel, 2007). Further, Summers (2004, p. 228) states, “Somepeople prefer mentored instruction while others prefer group-problem solving exercises. Stillothers prefer self-paced learning. Simulation products currently do not address this diversity oflearning styles.” The fact that most simulation products do not consider possible individualdifferences in learners means that only a portion of trainees may benefit from a particularapplication. Instructional designers need to be careful to avoid a “one size fits all” approach tosimulation design, and research is needed to better understand the individual differences thatare important in simulation-based training and methods to accommodate the needs of differenttrainees (Bell & Kozlowski, 2007).Shaping the social environment. The final challenge facing organizations concerns theunique social environment that often results from simulation-based training design. There aremany who believe that the classroom atmosphere, interactions among trainees and betweentrainees and trainers, and sense of learning community offered by traditional, face-to-face instruction are essential for learning (Webster & Hackley, 1997). Katz (1999, p. 335), forinstance, argues, “The real distinctive competence of the classroom setting is the power of thepeople around you – the professor as facilitator and expert, the peers as sources of immediatefeedback ….” A high level of interactivity is not necessary for all training programs, but when itis important to learning or for giving employees an opportunity to socialize and network withtheir colleagues, the challenge is determining how to most effectively connect learners usingcommunication and collaboration tools (Bell & Kozlowski, 2007).Although the social context is often an important part of the learning process, manysimulations continue to offer a solitary learning experience, which can jeopardize theadvantages of social interaction and collaboration in training. Fortunately, there is a growinguse of communication technologies that enable trainees to engage in virtual social exchangesthat approximate face-to-face interactions. In particular, as organizations increasingly offersimulation-based training through the Internet, it is becoming easier and cheaper to networktrainees and incorporate communication and collaboration tools (Katz, 1999). However,research also suggests that just because the tools or capabilities are offered, that does notnecessarily mean they will be used. There is some evidence to suggest that groupware tools,such as web-based forums and chatrooms, often used to supplement traditional classroomactivities are generally underutilized by students (Prosperio & Gioia, 2007). These findingssuggest that trainees may only utilize communication and collaboration tools when they areessential to the simulation experience.
CETS 2012, Nancy Munro, slides for How Emotional-Based Training Accelerates Knoweldge Transfer
How EmotionalBased LearningEffects KnowledgeTransferNancy Munro, CEOKnowledgeShift Inc.