Scenarios can be implemented in actual simulations (where the world is actively modeled, and the consequences are calculated), or in branching scenarios where the relationships are hard-coded in the consequences attached to a decision.

scenarios give us contextualized practice, which research shows leads to better retention and transfer. With the right choices, the scenario is engaging and provides meaningful practice, which leads to acquiring new abilities.

<div data-breakout="normal"><p class="-Zro6 -ZADH IjV6v AnCKd _57WYp" id="viewer-avnma"><span class="d0767"><span style="font-weight:700"><span>DAN: What makes learning through a simulation experience unique and meaningful?</span></span></span></p></div><div type="paragraph" data-hook="rcv-block26"></div><div data-breakout="normal"><p class="-Zro6 -ZADH IjV6v AnCKd _57WYp" id="viewer-d53db"><span class="d0767"><span style="font-weight:700"><span>CLARK</span></span><span>: As above, research says that contextualized practice (with feedback) is the best way to develop new abilities. They need to have a ’story’ setting: a context, then something happens that precipitates the need for a decision, and then the decision has consequences. That’s just a better-written multiple-choice question (please!), but if we drive the outcomes from a branching or simulation basis, this can lead to new decisions (they travel in packs!)</span></span></p></div>

Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) is a family of psychological research methods for uncovering and representing what people know and how they think. CTA extends traditional task analysis to tap into the mental processes that underlie observable behavior, and reveal the <a href="https://www.globalcognition.org/cognitive-skills/">cognitive skills</a> and strategies needed to effectively tackle challenging situations.

Instead, the idea of the critical decision method is to get experienced professionals to describe some of the toughest challenges they faced. By using carefully crafted probes, the CTA interviewer teases out how these people assessed situations and made decisions in critical moments of their experience.

Learning experience design (LX design or LXD) is the process of creating learning experiences that enable the learner to achieve the desired learning outcome in a human centered and goal oriented way. <br> - Niels Floor

Focusing on the whole experience, requires a more holistic design approach. For example, emotion plays a vital part in how we experience things. We all have memories that are strong because of how they made you feel. In education there tends to be a clear emphasis on cognition while emotion is hardly part of the conversation. In LXD emotion is carefully considered. Designing for emotion and cognition is key to creating a powerful learning experience.

Learning experience design is not a science. While learning science can support your design decisions, most insights into the quality and effectiveness of your design come from developing and testing prototypes.

This focus on the learner also applies to the learning outcome. In the definition of LXD at the start of this article a “desired learning outcome” is mentioned. A learning outcome is desirable when it is relevant, meaningful, and valuable to the learner.

The logical thing is to start with formulating the desired learning outcome. Every step that follows in the design process, including the choice in technology, should be geared towards reaching that outcome.

Stories may be easier to remember and comprehend than essays because stories resemble our everyday experiences (Bruner, <a href="#CR10" rid="CR10" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">1986</a>; Graesser et al., <a href="#CR39" rid="CR39" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">1991</a>). People experience life in the real world as temporally ordered causal events, organized around personal goals, with the encountering and overcoming of obstacles to these goals resulting in emotional experiences; this parallels the structure of stories (Graesser, McNamara, &amp; Louwerse, <a href="#CR37" rid="CR37" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">2003</a>; Graesser, Singer, &amp; Trabasso, <a href="#CR38" rid="CR38" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">1994</a>).

Familiarity with the structure and content of a text is referred to as relevant “prior knowledge” (Dochy, Segers, &amp; Buehl, <a href="#CR28" rid="CR28" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">1999</a>), and stories might be more memorable and comprehensible thanks to readers having greater prior knowledge.

Readers are less likely to benefit from prior knowledge while reading an essay, relative to stories, and are therefore less likely to benefit from easy inferences. This combination could easily put expository texts at a disadvantage when it comes to memory and comprehension (Coté, Goldman, &amp; Saul, <a href="#CR18" rid="CR18" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">1998</a>; McNamara, <a href="#CR68" rid="CR68" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">2004</a>).

A final reason to believe that narratives may be more memorable than expository texts hinges on the ability of emotions to facilitate memory (Hamann, <a href="#CR42" rid="CR42" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">2001</a>). Affectively charged recollections have been dubbed “flash-bulb” memories, to communicate the idea that emotional events are deeply imprinted on the mind, like a flash aiding photography (Winograd &amp; Neisser, <a href="#CR107" rid="CR107" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">1992</a>). This emotional facilitation of memory appears to result from a prioritizing of emotional material when it comes to attention and perception (Brosch, Pourtois, &amp; Sander, <a href="#CR9" rid="CR9" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">2010</a>), with personal relevance playing a key role (Levine &amp; Edelstein, <a href="#CR58" rid="CR58" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">2009</a>). To the extent that stories are better able to evoke strong emotions than expository texts (cf. Mar, Oatley, Djikic, &amp; Mullin, <a href="#CR62" rid="CR62" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">2011</a>), we would expect stories to be better recalled than exposition.

Our primary research question was whether memory and comprehension differ for narrative versus expository texts. Our three-level random-effects meta-analysis of 150 effect-sizes found that, on average, memory and comprehension of narrative texts was superior to that for expository texts.

Our meta-analysis of 150 effect-sizes (from over 75 unique samples and more than 33,000 participants) found that people had an easier time comprehending and recalling narrative texts compared to expository ones. The average magnitude of this effect was more than a half a standard deviation, with a 95% CI ranging from just more than one-quarter to slightly more than three-quarters of a standard deviation. Moreover, this result appears to be robust, and not driven by any one particular effect-size or study. There was a great deal of variability in these effects, however, almost all of which represents true heterogeneity and not random sampling error. This variability originated primarily from differences between studies.

In closing, the totality of the evidence available finds that people have an easier time comprehending and recalling information presented in a story compared to that presented in an essay. This has potential implications for a number of disciplines, not least of which is the realm of education.

To that end, the advantage afforded to narratives over exposition in this domain should be considered whenever possible. We must emphasize, however, that these results should not be interpreted as a suggestion to force all information into a narrative form for pedagogical purposes, especially when such information is not typically presented in this way.

It is quite possible that mixed genres like narrative journalism, for example, could hold the key for leveraging the advantages of narrative–its ability to capture interest and communicate experience through imagination – to meet the goals of exposition to inform and educate (van Krieken &amp; Sanders, <a href="#CR102" rid="CR102" class=" bibr popnode" role="button" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true">in press</a>).

Based on over 75 unique samples and data from more than 33,000 participants, we found that stories were more easily understood and better recalled than essays. Moreover, this result was robust, not influenced by the inclusion of a single effect-size or single study, and not moderated by various study characteristics. This finding has implications for any domain in which acquiring and retaining information is important.

One way to go wrong is to have the choices that learners choose between to be statements, not choices of action. It’s easy to set up a scenario, particularly a mini-scenario with a story, but then ask learners to determine if something’s one of several ‘things’, such as categorizing the situation. It’s a nuance, but the choices should reflect what learners should do, e.g., with such a categorization. Do you then invoke practice X, or do action Y? Make sure you’re having learners make choices that do things, not just think things.

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>