Blog posts

Results revealed detrimental effects of talking heads on the recall of factual knowledge covered in the videos. Interestingly, participants rated their perceived learning as being higher for videos with talking head. Furthermore, participants assigned higher satisfaction scores to videos with talking heads and selected them more frequently when choosing between different formats.

<span>Higher levels of teacher presence have been positively associated with student satisfaction and student&nbsp;</span><em>perceptions</em><span>&nbsp;of learning.</span>

Findings suggest that combining talking heads and annotations in asynchronous video lectures yielded the longest watch time, and highest satisfaction, engagement, and attitude scores.

Modern professional work consists of a wide range of activities, rather than a single specialization.

AI acts as a leveler, raising everyone to a minimum level of performance.

Just because early results for AI suggest that only lower performing people benefit does not mean that this is the only possible pattern. It may be that the reason only lower performers gain from AI currently is because the current AI systems are not good enough to help top performers. Or, alternately, it might be that top performers need more training and work to get benefits from AI. If either of these conditions prove true, and they certainly seem plausible, then AI might act more as an escalator, increasing the skills for everyone, from top to bottom performers. After an adjustment period, the relative skill positions stay similar, but everyone gets more done, faster.

<span>Alternately, it might be that some people are just really good at working with AI. They can </span><a href="https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/centaurs-and-cyborgs-on-the-jagged" rel="">adopt Cyborg practices </a><span>better than others and have a natural (or learned) gift for working with LLM systems.</span>

<span style="font-size: 1rem;">How much should you pay for a learning solution? Why does one vendor quote $5,000 and another $20,000? At its core, the price of a learning solution is a very simple equation –&nbsp;</span><strong style="font-size: 1rem;">Rate x Effort = Price.</strong>

For those organizations that buy learning from third-party vendors these prices may seem quite low, and they are. The $65 rate is commensurate with what one of those companies would pay an employee but does not include all of the overheads, cost of sale, and profit that company would typically account for in the price. As a rule of thumb, a custom learning company will price at about 60% gross margin, which in short-hand means you multiple direct costs by 2.5.

- Interactive Story: $15,000&nbsp;<br>Includes needs analysis, scripting for one 7 question interactive story, custom graphics and feedback documentation. <br><br>- Instructional Design Sprint: $7,500<br>One week intensive ID sprint - analysis, design, dev, revisions. For quick turnaround projects.

Next example: a training on "Cryogenic nitrogen and associated dangers". We started this training with an impactful image: An industry hall, exit door in the back and some materials obstructing the exit. All of a sudden, a cryogenic fog sets up, making it impossible to see the floor. Question to the learner was: Find your way out, without stumbling (and thus suffocating). Remember the materials? Remember you are dealing with nitrogen? Without explicitly listing learning objectives in the beginning of the e-Learning, we captured learners' attention, making them eager to learn more about other characteristics of nitrogen and the safety measures in such environments.