<li>Immediate feedback prevents subsequent confusion and limits the likelihood for continued inappropriate retrieval practice.</li> <li>Delayed feedback creates a beneficial spacing effect.</li> <li>When in doubt about the timing of feedback, you can (a) give immediate feedback and then a subsequent delayed retrieval opportunity, (b) delay feedback slightly, and/or (c) just be sure to give some kind of feedback.</li> <li>Feedback should usually be provided before learners get another chance to retrieve incorrectly again.</li>

Utilize decision-making scenarios. Consider using them not just in a minor role—for example at the end of a section—but integrated into the main narrative of your learning design.

Determine the most important points you want to get across AND the most important situations in which these points are critical. Then, provide extra repetitions spaced over time on these key points and situations.

Thus Kirschner, Sweller and Clark's paper is an important reminder for us to not carry Problem Based Learning (PBL) to its extreme. That is, while it has its strengths, learners often need a more direct approach in order to build a solid foundations before being presented with PBL.

With the title blaring, “<em>Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work”</em> rather than, <em>“Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work for Novice Learners,” </em>the authors almost seem to ignore that PBL is a necessity in order to promote deeper levels of understanding.

The paper relies heavily on Cognitive Load Theory, yet we have to realize that it is still a theory rather than a law.

Thus, both the authors and the constructivism movement are guilty of jumping on theories before they are fully understood.

<p>When you’re a domain expert in your field, it’s difficult to step back and remember what it was like to be a beginner. Once we have knowledge, it’s very hard to remember what life was like without it.</p> <p>Instead of placing the burden of training on a subject-matter expert, it’s often more effective to establish a collaboration between subject-matter experts and trainers who are experts in breaking down information, recognizing the critical elements, and putting it back together in a way that’s digestible for people who aren’t experts. </p>

<p>Participants also indicated the types of assignment they feel are inappropriate for them. Most of the assignments refused could be characterized as “conventional.” Several participants specifically mentioned that they distance themselves from training about products and software to focus on more strategic projects.</p> <p>One participant avoids “order-taker projects.” </p>

Cognitive science has to do with the mind and mental processes, such as thinking, learning, and problem solving at the human (or other organism) level.<em> </em>Neuroscience has to do with the biology of the nervous system, including how the brain works, at the anatomical level such as neurons.

Bottom line: When you hear claims about <em>neuro</em> or <em>brain</em> related to training, you should ask: Is it cognitive science or is it made up?

The amount a learner will forget varies depending on many things. We as learning professionals will be more effective if we make decisions based on a deep understanding of how to minimize forgetting and enhance remembering.

To be specific, when we hear statements like, “People will forget 60% of what they learned within 7 days,” we should ignore such advice and instead reflect on our own superiority and good looks until we are decidedly pleased with ourselves.

Many of the experiments reviewed in this report showed clearly that learning methods matter. For example, in the Bahrick 1979 study, the best learning methods produced an average forgetting score of -29% forgetting, whereas the worst learning methods produced forgetting at 47%, a swing of 76% points.