Skip navigation
Evidence-Based Training Methods
Book

Evidence-Based Training Methods

A Guide for Training Professionals

ASTD Publications, 2010 more...

Buy book or audiobook


Editorial Rating

7

Qualities

  • Concrete Examples

Recommendation

Many professionals suffer misconceptions about which training methods work and which do not. Instructional design expert Ruth Colvin Clark explodes the myths regarding training. To replace the practices she discredits, Clark gives instructors numerous research-based recommendations. Learning professionals turn to Clark for their own development, an accolade from her peers that encourages getAbstract to recommend her heavily researched insights to teachers, training materials developers, e-learning professionals and training managers.

Summary

What’s the Evidence?

Recent, reliable scientific research findings are exploding long-held myths about training:

  • “Learning styles” – Different styles of learning simply do not exist, so don’t organize your instruction to accommodate supposed varying kinds of learners. Instead, focus on the extent of knowledge that students already have about your subject. New students need more directed learning, while experienced students benefit more from open teaching.
  • “Media panaceas” – The “psychologically active ingredients” of your instructional materials matter more than the technology you use. You should provide “learner-centered” rather than “technology-centric” instruction and training.
  • “The more they like it, the more they learn” – Favorable student evaluations of courses and instructors actually are not significant. Research shows no parallels between student course ratings and actual learning. To determine the effectiveness of your course, test students and measure their work performance to see if their skills have improved.
  • “Stories (games or you-name-it) promote learning”

About the Author

Ruth Colvin Clark founded her own company, Clark Training & Consulting, and is a former president of the International Society for Performance Improvement.


Comment on this summary