Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Game Implications

by Leave a Comment

Eileen Clegg asked me some questions as part of a report she’s doing for the Future of Talent Institute.

1.   How do you think gaming will change the landscape for people in charge of recruiting, developing and retaining top talent?

Gaming is an optimized performance environment, with all that entails.   First, a game can both help individuals understand what a particular company is about (e.g. Sun’s games to introduce their business units), and what the job is like (e.g. America’s Army).   It can also serve as a filter or aptitude test, where the better the individual performs, the better a candidate they’re likely to be.   There are a couple of armed/military services around the world that have challenging games to test aptitude (a Scandinavian navy, and the British SAS, if memory serves).

Then, once an employee is onboard, games are the best practice environment next to real world mentored practice, and the latter doesn’t scale well (real practice can be expensive, both to develop and as a consequence of failure; individual mentors are similarly expensive). You can build contextually immersive practice with the depth to achieve mastery.   The effort to convey what the job is like and to really develop people (instead of just knowledge dump) is a good incentive to employees to stick with the company, I believe.

Overall, I think that organizations that can take advantage of gaming to provide meaningful practice and assessment are leveraging the most powerful formal learning tool available and will have the competitive advantage.

2.   What do you think is “least understood” about gaming right now?

Where do I start? Two things top my list.

First, is the belief that gaming is just ‘tarted-up quiz shows’, when it’s really truly challenging and effective learning practice.

Second, that it has to cost millions of dollars, when instead games can be done on reasonable budgets to meet many organizational needs.

The challenge is in the design, not the development costs, and if you get the design right the development may be quite affordable and the outcomes very effective.

3.   What is the best quote from your new book to help us understand the gameification of the corporate world?

“The step from convenience to context-specific, however, provides a new opportunity.   A mobile-specific type of game, augmented reality games (or ARGS), has the activity layered on top of real life, taking advantage of when and where you are to drive interaction.”…this form of learning has the potential to be more than effective, but to be truly transformational, and you should be primed to look for opportunities to take the learning experience to the next ‘level’.”

BTW, I did write augmented reality, and many would argue that I mean ‘alternate reality games’, and I do think those have wild potential as well, but here I am talking about context-specific games, and that would be augmented reality.

Quip: tuning

by 2 Comments

You can’t declare it’s a game, your learners will tell you if it is or not.

I found a game for my iPad that I really liked.   A casual gamer, so that while it has a story, I can play it without having to get too crazy about learning timing issues or complicated commands.

I played it through, and several different times again with different characters, and eagerly awaited the sequel.   Which finally occurred and I was again progressing through the game.   Er, until the end, and that’s where this story begins.

When I got to the last boss, suddenly I couldn’t finish.   I couldn’t beat the boss!   Instead of happily progressing, suddenly I was grinding to get my character to level up, and trying again, while looking for more special equipment.   It was suddenly frustrating, not fun.

Now, I’d pretty well just bashed my way through: no finesse in movement.   But that had worked.   So if I was supposed to pick up more nuanced movements and commands, there had been no incentive. Well, I finally beat the boss after numerous attempts, and then the game was over, but I hadn’t really found out what I’d done that worked.

Again, I started with a different character, and again it was fun. Up until the end, and again I was faced with the unbeatable boss. Again I ground, and again I finally succeeded, but it was still an anti-climax after so much fun prior to that point.

The point here is not to complain about this particular game, but to point out that getting the experience right matters.   When I run my game design lectures and/or workshops, I point out that as Will Wright once told me, tuning is 9/10ths of the work.   And it’s got to go all the way through, with the right audience.   It may be that they didn’t test the end with a casual gamer like me, but it was a jarring ending to what had been.

Now, in most of the formal learning situations we design for, we have sticks as well as carrots, so we aren’t expecting our learners to pay for the privilege of completing our learning experience, but it’s important to understand what learner experience we think would be reasonable and shoot for achieving that.   It’s subjective, so asking them is just fine, but you want to set metrics for the user experience (tested for after you ensure usability   isn’t a barrier and you are achieving your learning outcomes) and then tune until you get them. Or, of course, until you find out you won’t on your current budget and adjust your expectations, but doing so consciously.

As I say, you don’t turn a scenario into a game, you tune it into a game.   And even when you are not shooting for a game, this applies to learning experience design as well.   Emotions and subjective experience matters, so do consider testing and tuning until you achieve the experience you need.

Learning Technologies UK wrap-up

by 4 Comments

I had the pleasure of speaking at the Learning Technologies ’11 conference, talking on the topic of games.   I’ve already covered Roger Schank‘s keynote, but I want to pick up on a couple of other things. Overall, however, the conference was a success: good thinking (more below), good people, and well organized.

The conference was held on the 3rd floor of the conference hall, while floors 1 and ground hosted the exposition: the ground floor hosted the learning and skills (think: training) exhibits while the 1st floor held learning technology (read: elearning) vendors.   I have to admit I was surprised (not unpleasantly) that things like the reception weren’t held in the exhibit halls.   The conference was also split between learning technologies (Day 1) and learning and skills (day 2), so I have to admit being somewhat surprised that there weren’t receptions on the respective floors, to support the vendors, tho’ having a chance to chat easily with colleagues in a more concise environment was also nice.

I’m not the only one who commented on the difference between the floors: Steve Wheeler wrote a whole post about it, noting that the future was above, and the past showing below.   At a post-conference review session, everyone commented on how the level of discussion was more advanced than expected (and gave me some ideas of what I’d love to cover if I got the chance again).   I’d   heard that Donald Taylor runs a nice conference, and was pleased to see that it more than lived up to the billing.   There was also a very interesting crowd of people I was glad to meet or see again.

In addition to Roger’s great talk on what makes learning work, there were other stellar sessions. The afore-mentioned Steve did a advanced presentation on the future of technologies that kept me engaged despite a severe bout of jetlag, talking about things you’ve also heard here: semantics, social, and more.   He has a web x.0 model that I want to hear more about, because I wasn’t sure I bought the premise, but I like his thinking very much. There was also a nice session on mobile, with some principles presented and then an interesting case study using iPads under somewhat severe(military) constraints on security.

It was hard to see everything I wanted to, with four tracks. To see Steve, I had to pass up Cathy Moore, who’s work I’ve admired, though it was a pleasure to meet her for sure.   I got to see Jane Bozarth, but at the expense of missing my colleague Charles Jennings.   I got to support our associate Paul Simbeck-Hampson, but at the cost of missing David Mallon talk on learning culture, and so on.

A great selection of talks to hear is better than not. There was also a very interesting crowd of people I was glad to meet or see again.   A great experience, overall, and I can happily recommend the conference.

Talking on Games at Learning Technologies UK (26-27 Jan)

by 5 Comments

On short notice, I’ll be speaking on games at the UK’s Learning Technologies conference at the end of the month.   I’ve heard great things and always wanted to go, and now I get to.

I’ve met and talked with Donald Taylor, who manages it, and he instill confidence in the quality of the conference.   And looking at the lineup of speakers, I’m impressed and eager.   I see folks I’ve wanted to hear and meet (Cathy Moore and Clive Shepherd, for two), folks I know and want to spend more time with, and new folks to find out about.

And I’m keen to revisit games.   It’s been six years (!) since I put up my take on designing learning games, but I have continued to look at what’s out there.   And I mmodestly think that while there are some really great books out there, none really provides any improvement in what I focused on: why learning can and should be hard fun.

In particular, the alignment between what makes engaging experiences and what makes effective education practice is still the best model I’ve found to frame design, and my design process still provides systematic and pragmatic guidance about how to design them.   After all, it’s all well and good to talk about how wonderful games can be, but if you can’t reliably and repeatably do that for any learning objective, it’s kind of a waste. And I stick to my claim that you can’t give me a learning objective I can’t design a game for, but I reserve the right to raise the objective ‘high’ enough (in the taxonomic sense).

I truly believe games are important.   They are, quite simply, the best practice environment you can provide to develop the learning outcomes that will make a difference to your organization: the ability to make the right decisions.   Ok, the best next to mentored live practice, but that has problems of scale; mentors are hard to clone, and live practice can be costly.   Games can also serve as assessment environments.

So, I encourage you to attend the conference if you can, it looks quite good. And, if you do, I hope you introduce yourself.   Looking forward to it!

The Power of Role-based e-Learning

by Leave a Comment

The Power of Role-Based e-Learning: designing and moderating online role play is a new book out that talks about simple methods to get powerful learning outcomes from collaborative games.   Written by Sandra Wills, Elyssebeth Leigh, and Albert Ip, esteemed Aussie colleagues all with lots of experience in this area, it’s a thoughtful presentation of why, and how, you should use these techniques to get valuable outcomes.

Here’s the publisher’s blurb:

Written for educators seeking to engage students in collaboration and communication about authentic scenarios, the power of role-based e- learning offers helpful, accessible advice on the practice and research needed to design online role play. Drawing on the experiences of world- leading practitioners and citing an array of worldwide examples, it is a readable, non-technical, and comprehensive guide to the design, implementation, and evaluation of this exciting teaching approach.
Issues discussed include:

  • designing effective online role plays
  • defining games, simulations and role plays
  • moderating engaging and authentic role-based e-learning activities
  • assessment and evaluation

The power of role-based e-learning offers a careful analysis of the strengths and learning opportunities of online role play, and is realistic about possible difficulties. Providing guidance for both newcomers and experienced professionals who are developing their online teaching repertoire, it is an invaluable resource for teachers, trainers, academics, and educational support staff involved in e-learning.

Also note that it’s designed for education, but the lessons are valuable for organizational application as well.

As I state in the foreword:

This book stakes out important ground for e-learning, demonstrating how clever design trumps the miracles of flashy technology in achieving just such a practical approach.   While the power of gaming for learning has been the topic of a number of books, the particular, er, role of role-playing has been insufficiently explored and exploited.   Yet, as this book makes manifestly clear, there are powerful outcomes available, using simple mechanisms but capitalizing on deep understanding of learning.

The book also looks forward, talking about virtual worlds and, yes, mobile learning. Alternate Reality Games are a really interesting opportunity here.

Allow me to strongly encourage you to check out this book, and see for yourself how thoughtful understanding of learning trumps technological finesse when it comes to creating meaningful   experiences.   We need more good learning design, and as much help as we can get.

Serendipitous revisiting

by 2 Comments

In many ways, it can seem like we revisit the same old ideas again and again.   I’ve ranged over design, social, games, mobile, strategy and more in many different ways.   I try to write when there are new ideas, but many times the same themes are reviewed, albeit extended.   This might seem tiresome (more so, perhaps, to me than you :), but there’s value in it.

I’ve talked previously about explorability.   As I mentioned, I heard the concept while doing a summer internship, and was excited by it.   The other part is that I brought it back to our research lab (focused on interface design at the time), and the reaction was essentially nil. Fast-forward a couple of years, and when discussing some nuance of usability (perhaps affordances), I raised it again, to wide excitement!   What had changed?

The lesson I learned is that not only do you need the right idea, but you also need the right context.   I find that matters I talked about years ago will be just right for someone now.   So the work I did laying out the appropriate elements for game design in 1998 were appropriate for a book in 2005.   I talked about learning games from about 2002 on, and finally it went from ’emerging technologies’ to mainstream in the program track around 2008.   I’ve been talking about mobile since 2000, and finally have a book coming out in January. I wonder when mlearning will cross the chasm.

So the point is that you have to keep putting ideas out there, again and again, to find the right time for them to take hold.   Not like advertising, but like offerings.   It’s not planned, it’s just at the idea strikes, but I reckon that’s a better heuristic than a more calculated algorithm. At least, if you are trying to inspire positive change, and I confess that I am.

I’ve been podcasted!

by Leave a Comment

Rob Penn, CEO of SuddenlySmart (makers of SmartBuilder, one of the new breed of authoring tools), interviewed me last fall about engaging learning: game design, simulations, etc.   It followed one by Professor Allison Rossett of SDSU (also available at the site).

I always find it hard to listen to myself (my voice sounds much better in my head :), and the audio is a little murky, but I hit the usual important notes about focusing on decisions that learners need to be able to make, getting challenge right, capturing misconceptions, and more.

Rob also gets me to discriminate between simulations, scenarios, and games (simulations are just models, scenarios have an initial state and a goal state learners should get to, you can tune a scenario into a game), and I also elaborate how you go from multiple choice, through branching scenarios, to full simulation driven engines (jumping off from Rob’s question instead of first answering it, mea culpa!).

Feedback welcome!

May Big Q: Workplace Learning Technology 2015

by Leave a Comment

The Learning Circuits Blog Big Question of the Month for May is “What will workplace learning technology look like in 2015?”   This is a tough question for me, because I tend to see what could be the workplace tech if we really took advantage of the opportunities. Consequently, my predictions tend to be optimistic, as the real world has a way of not moving near as fast as one could wish.   Still, I actually prefer to think on what could be the possibilities, as it’s more inspiring.   Maybe I’ll answer both.

The opportunities on the table are immense.   Mobile technologies are taking off, we’re getting real power in technology standards (and still some hiccups), and we’re crossing boundaries between reality and virtual worlds.

Smartphones are on the rise, and new portable devices (e.g. tablets) are expanding the possibilities.   It’s highly plausible that we’ll have expanded the performance ecosystem to be location independent, and be providing the 4C’s in ways that allow powerful access, sharing, and collaboration.

Virtual worlds provide a different approach, where instead of augmenting reality, we’re re-contextualized in an artificial but enhanced space where capabilities that don’t exist in the real world are available to us.   We can build 3D models, communicate in micro or macro spaces (within molecules or between galaxies), and open up the hidden components of real spaces.   Again, we can leverage the 4C’s to go beyond courses to a fuller definition of learning.

This can be facilitated by standards.   If HTML 5 coalesces as it should, we can and should be delivering rich interactivity, not just content delivery.   Similarly, if we can move beyond ebook standards to capture interactivity, we can make easy marketplaces to deliver capability that is available regardless of connectivity. Virtual world standards are emerging too, and hopefully some convergence will have happened by 2015!

Also, if our backend systems progress as they can (and should), we should be able to move to Web 3.0 where instead of producers or users, the systems generate content.   We can use semantic technologies to do customized delivery of information, pulling together what we know about the learner (e.g. from a competency map or learning path), about the content available (from a content model), and their tasks (from a job role) and their current context (their location and what’s on their calendar) to serve up just the right information.

This is all possible.   What’s probable?   We’ll have seen major progress in mobile tools, whether companies wake up or it’s just individual initiative to accessorize the brain.   Virtual worlds will also be more prevalent, though not ubiquitous.   Social media systems will be much more integrated into the workflow, and LMS will have become just a cog in the ecosystem, not the ecosystem. The social media will be available whether you’re in-world, in the world, or at your desk.

Semantics, however, are likely to still be nebulous. People are beginning to take advantage of powerful content systems leveraging tagging and flexible delivery, but it’s still embryonic.   There’ll be more pockets, but it won’t be a groundswell yet.

I’m probably still be optimistic, but a guy can hope, and of course strive to make it so.   This is what I do and where I like to play. I welcome more playmates in this great playground of opportunity.

Zimmerman Keynote Mindmap DevLearn 09

by Leave a Comment

Eric Zimmerman spoke eloquently on games as the second day keynote at DevLearn.   In it, he talked about how systems thinking was important, how games are systems of rules and consequently develop systems thinking.   He talked about how our play brings meaning to the rules, and that creating spaces of possible outcomes allow us to explore.

He ended up advocating that we design for possibilities of unexpected outcomes to create meaning for our learners.   Cammy Bean has blogged the presentation too.

ZimmermanDevLearnMindMap