Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Search Results for: engag

Designing a game

by Leave a Comment

When I was a young academic in Australia, a colleague asked me if I would talk to some folks about a game. He knew that I had designed games before returning to grad school, and had subsequently done one on my thesis research. This group, the Australian Children’s Welfare Agency, had an ‘After Care’ project to assist kids  who needed to live independently. They’d spent their budget on a video, comic book, and a poster, but now realized that the kids would play games at the Care centers. I had a talented student who wanted to do a meaningful honours project, and so I agreed.

Following best principles, we talked not only to the project leaders, and the counselors, but more. We weren’t allowed to talk to youth ‘in care’ (for obvious reasons), but they did get us access to some recent graduates. They gave us great insights, and later they playtested the prototype for fine-tuning.

One of the lessons from this was important. The counselors told us that what these kids needed were to learn to shop and cook. While I  could have made a game for that, when we talked to the kids we learned that there was more.  (My claim: you can’t give me a learning objective I can’t make a game for, though I reserve the right to raise the objective in a taxonomic sense.)   They said what was important were the chains. That is, you could get money while you looked for a job, but… They wouldn’t give you money, however, they’d deposit in a bank account. BUT, to get that, you needed ID.  To get that, however, you needed references. And so on. So that was the critical focus.

I taught my interface design students HyperCard, to have a simple language to prototype in. This meant that we had an environment that we knew games could be built in.  My student did most of the programming, under my direction.  When that wasn’t quite sufficient to finish the development, I used some grant money to hire her for the summer to finish it.

early screenThe resulting play was good, but the design was lacking (neither my student nor I were graphic designers). I ended up going with the project team leaders to get philanthropic funding to add graphics. (Which introduced bugs I had to fix.)  They also had it ported to the PC, which ended up being a mistake.Their hired gun used a platform with an entirely different underlying model and wasn’t able to translate it appropriately. Ouch.

Later street

The resulting game, had some specific design features:

  • It was exploratory, in that the player had to wander around and try to survive.
  • It was built upon a simple simulation engine, which supported replay.
  • There were variables, like health and hunger and sleep that would get worse over time, driving action.
  • The audience was low literacy, so we used graphics to convey variable states, interface elements, and location.
  • Success was difficult. Jobs were difficult to obtain, and better jobs were even harder. And, of course, you had to discover the chains.
  • There was coaching: if you were struggling, the game would offer you the opportunity for a hint. If you continued to struggle, eventually you’d get the hint anyway.
  • There was also a help system, where the basics were laid out.
  • There were random events, like getting (or losing) money, or having drugs or sex. (We were trying to save lives, and didn’t worry about upsetting the wowsers.)

There was more, but this characterized some of the important elements.  In reflecting upon the experience, I realized the alignment between effective education and engaging experiences that means you can, and should, make learning  hard fun.  I wrote a journal article (with my student) that captured what I will  suggest are critical realizations (still!).

They held an event to launch the entire project, including the game (and they gave me a really nice sweater, and Dana something too ;).  Tomorrow, I’ll pass on some of the subsequent outcomes.

Services

by Leave a Comment

From time to time, it’s worth a reminder that Quinnovation (the firm behind the blog) is available to help you.  Here are the services you can look to from me, in case you want to accelerate your success.

And a wee bit of self-promotion: if expertise comes from years of practice, how about 3+ decades of investigating the breadth and depth of learning & performance, and exploration of technology support?  Why not get assistance from where the thinking originates, not the several-steps away diluted version?

Consulting:

Learning Design: are your design processes yielding the outcomes they should and need to? I have worked with many organizations to generate or tighten learning design processes to reflect learning science (not myths). I recognize that most organizations can’t completely revamp their approaches, so I look to the small changes with the biggest impact. A white paper talks about this.

Performance Ecosystem Strategy: are you leading your organization forward in learning (read: innovation) or are you still taking orders for courses?  Based on the book, I’ve helped a number of organizations understand the full spectrum of possibilities, evaluate their situation, and prioritize short-, medium-, and long-term steps.  Another white paper talks about this.

Games & Mobile: I’ve helped a number of organizations get their minds, strategies, and design processes around mobile and/or games, based upon  those  books.

Workshops

Want to get your team up to speed on learning science, strategy, games, mobile, or more?  I have workshops on each that are interactive, engaging, and effective. Preferably, they’re coupled with followup to extend the learning (applying the learning science), and that can be done in a variety of ways.

Presentations

A number of organizations around the world have booked me to speak to their audiences. They have been about the subjects of my books, or the future of learning technology in general. And have indicated they were quite satisfied with the result ;). If you want a credible, engaging presenter around intelligence augmentation, I’m a candidate.

Writing

In addition to books, I write white papers, blog posts, and articles for others. I could do the same for you.

Coaching

If you’re a learning leader that would like assistance over time addressing your organization’s needs, it would certainly be worth a conversation. I haven’t done this formally, but it seems like a natural extension.

And, of course, there are combinations of these services as well. You can find out more at the official Quinnovation site. Next week we return you to your regularly scheduled blog at this same channel.

Quip: learning & instruction

by Leave a Comment

I spoke at the ATD International Conference last week on myths. I said a number of things (and a number were said about it, too :). However, one comment seems to be getting more traction than others. Moreover, it’s something I say regularly. So I thought I should add it to my collection of Quinn Quips.

The statement is simple:

Learning is action and reflection; instruction is  designed action and  guided  reflection.

What do I mean here? In life, things happen. We make choices, and there are consequences. When we observe them, and reflect, we begin to notice patterns. Some of this  can happen unconsciously, but if we want to improve fastest, reflecting helps. This can involve just thinking, or writing, or diagramming, or other ways of representing the contingencies and emerging models.

However, when we want to guide learning, e.g. instruct, one of the tasks we can undertake is creating a problem, and asking the learner to solve it. If we provide resources, and support the thinking afterwards, we increase the likelihood of learning outcomes.

A critical feature of this statement is that the choices of action that we design, and the choices of resources to support reflection (content  and representation tools), are critical. And, of course, we might need a series of activities (or application opportunities) to support learning.

An interesting option that emerges here is the opportunity for contextual learning. When an individual is engaged in a task relevant for learning, we can take advantage of it. With resources and reflection facilitation, a performance requirement becomes a learning opportunity!

It’s important that we understand the difference, but recognize (and reflect) the core.

Hard Fun Projects

by Leave a Comment

As a basic premise of my book on designing engaging learning, I maintain that learning can, and  should, be ‘hard fun’. When you look at learning and engagement, you find this perfect alignment of elements. And, it occurred to me, that’s also true for good project work.  And here I don’t just mean coursework assignments (though that too fits), but organizational innovation should also be hard fun!

As I’ve stated before in various places, when you’re designing new solutions, problem-solving, trouble-shooting, doing research, etc, you don’t know the answer when you begin.  Therefore you’re learning when you do so!  It’s not formal learning, it’s informal, but it’s still learning.  So what works in learning should make sense for innovation too.

And in learning, the alignment I found between elements of effective education and engaging learning make sense.  Both require (amongst others):

  • clear goals
  • appropriate challenge
  • meaningfulness of the problem to the context
  • meaningfulness to the learners
  • experimentation
  • feedback

And those also define a meaningful project for solving in the workplace.

That is, first  you need to have a clear goal. The size and scope of the task should be within the reach, but not the grasp, of the team. The project has to have a clear benefit to the organization.  And the team should be appropriately constituted with skills and committed to the project. The methods required for the innovation will be experimentation and feedback.  Of course, you also need diversity on the team, safety to experiment, accountability for the results.  (Which is helpful for formal learning too!)

We can, and should, be setting up our projects to meet these criteria. We get better outcomes, research tells us. That not only includes the product of the work, but team engagement as well. This is also a possible start to creating a culture of experimentation and continual learning. Which also has long-term upsides.

This came to me because I was asked in an interview what were the most fun projects I’d done. I realized that working with folks together to address problems, like when I led a team to develop an adaptive learning system, fit the bill.  And that’s work I love, whether having a group together to collectively work out better design processes or performance and development strategy.  Folks who’ve worked with me similarly have found it valuable. So who’s up for some ‘hard fun’?

Return on Wisdom

by Leave a Comment

In the early days of the internet, I had a chance to read one of the early translations of  The Japan That Can Say No.  The point I took away was the critique of short-term decision making driven by the need for shareholder returns.  I was pondering this the other day, as I wondered how organizations can look to make longer-term investments. And it led me to ponder the question of what the return is on wisdom.

So, the book was a sensation. At the time, the rumor was that it was written by two top Japanese. It wasn’t released in English, but instead was illicitly translated because of the scandalous claims.    Still, I thought the assessment of the problems with derivative financing and efficiency approaches were apt.  Are these approaches wise?

I use the term wisdom because I think we can, and need to, go beyond ‘smart’.  I was pursuing my own quest to transcend what I do, and came upon a nice view of wisdom from Sternberg. This one argues that we should make decisions with both short-  and long-term views, for not just us and ours, but for all people, with an explicit consideration of the value that we are following. Ok, so I’m a native Californian, but I don’t see a problem with this view. Smart is ‘in the moment’, wise is looking at the bigger picture.

I ponder this in the context of organizations continually looking to reduce costs through expediency. As an alternative, they could be looking at longer term approaches that help them get their workforce more intrinsically engaged.  Does outsourcing and layoffs end up being more costly than investing in better leadership and culture?

There are some answers.  Laurie Bassie’s research found that there was a correlation between high scores on handling people and business results.  Similarly, Towards Maturity finds that companies with good L&D practices are more likely to be successful.  It’s not surprising. When you provide meaningful work with enablement to succeed, you’re aligning the elements to succeed. It’s a path to a coherent organization. And, like with light, it’s more powerful.

There are arguments to move in wise directions. It may be hard if you’re driven by the need to produce short-term returns. Still, it’s the wise thing to do.

Activity or Application?

by 3 Comments

I’m a fan of Michael Allen’s, not only because he knows his stuff and he’s a very good person, but also because he has a knack for making things accessible.  For example, his Guide to eLearning is as good a guide to designing elearning as you can get (that and Julie Dirksen’s Design for How People Learn, both appropriately in their second edition).  So when I thought to criticize one of his models, I had to think  really hard!  And I’m still wrestling with it, but I also realize I’d gone down the same path!  Obviously, it’s time to explore the issue.

One of Michael’s models is the CCAF model for making meaningful elearning.  That’s:

  • Context: that sets up the situation
  • Challenge: that prompts the need for action
  • Activity: that the learner takes, and
  • Feedback: that comes from the situation.

There are nuances about this, but it nicely incorporates some of the best principles about designing effective (and engaging) practice. If you put people in a context and ask them to act, you’re minimizing the distance between the practice and the actual performance. Which is, of course, key to successful transfer.  So this is a very handy shorthand, like Cathy Moore’s Action Mapping.

Now, in many ways, this is similar to my own activity-based design, which is more a curricular model than a pedagogical one, but it foregrounds activity instead of content. The goal is to have learners  do something!  And, of course, I’m thinking of creating a work product in many instances, or making meaningful decisions.

So what was I concerned about?  Perhaps because I’d been thinking (and whinging) about ‘click to see more’ interactions, I want those activities to  mean something!  You could have an activity that’s just ‘matching’, or ‘identify the right word’ type of knowledge test. Those  are activities, just not cognitively challenging ones.  And of course Michael emphasizes this in his descriptions, but…there’s an opportunity for people to be slack.

I wondered about using ‘application’ instead of activity, focusing on the fact that people should be applying the knowledge to  do something, not just doing any sort of activity. Do the semantics matter enough to be worth considering?  Application-based design?  Context-Challenge-Application-Feedback? Perhaps not, but I thought I’d think ‘out loud’ as usual. (Both to reiterate the point as well as to solicit your input.) So, what are your thoughts? Worth it?  Or too much ‘splitting angel’s hairs on the head of a pin’ (metaphors mixed while you wait)?

Possible versus practical

by Leave a Comment

Last week, I gave a presentation to the local chapter of ATD. And I was surprised that their request was for mobile learning. Now that  is something I can speak to, but given that my book on the topic came out seven years ago now, it seemed like a dated topic. And I was wrong.  And the difference is between what’s possible and what’s practical.

Ok, so I am somewhat out ahead of the curve.  My games book came out in 2005, but the market wasn’t quite ready.  I similarly think my L&D revolution book, in 2014, was ahead of the market (the topic is finally getting more traction, close to four years later), though closer. But I thought the mlearning book was timely (not least because my publisher asked for it more than it was my initiative ;).

However, the audience was eager.  And it was relatively large for the group.  And it took a comment from the organizer to raise my awareness.  He said (and I paraphrase): “you think that it’s old, but it’s not old for everyone”. And that was indeed a wakeup call.  Because while mobile to me is very practical, for many it’s still possible.

I  do tend to move on once I reckon I’ve figured something out. I’m interested when it’s still something to be understood or solved. Once I have my mind around it, my restless brain is on to something new.  That’s why I have this blog, for instance, to wrestle with new thoughts. If they get organized enough, it becomes a presentation or even a book.  (Though sometimes I do ones that are requested, e.g. my forthcoming one on myths, and I’m supposed to be reviewing the second round of proofs!)

But the interesting thing to me is to look beyond my own bubble (and what my colleagues are talking about).  We’re looking at what’s possible but not yet done, or what’s on the horizon. Yet I need to remember to continue to tout what’s now on the menu, and recognize not everyone’s yet started moving.  The things that I think are already practical to implement are still on the ‘possible’ list for others.

If you’re reading this blog, you’re probably with me, but feel free to let others know that the things in my past I’m still happy to help with!  In any way: consulting or workshops or even speaking.  For instance, I’ll be talking engagement for the Guild at Learning Solutions, and in a webinar for AECT’s Learner Engagement group.  Just as I talk new things, like myths.  What goes around comes around, I guess, and what’s been possible is now practical.  Ask me how!

 

The Dearth of Science in Learning Technology

by 4 Comments

Over the years, I’ve looked at a lot of learning technology.  And I see a dispiriting trend. There seems to be little learning science of late.  What I see are marketing driven decisions, even when there are claims to science!  And I think this is a problem.

First, I generally resist the ‘let me show you our product and give us your opinion’. That’s free consulting, and a very rude ask!  (Though I’m contemplating it but all they’ll get for free is the number of comments in each category I’ve noted. ;)  Still  I  will investigate things of my volition at times.  I end up seeing a lot of technology by checking it out when someone talks about it, or wandering expo halls.  And what I see concerns me.

For one, there are too many tools that have suites of features that are oriented towards ‘information dump and knowledge test’.  Which we know isn’t going to lead to meaningful learning.  Yet when I try to push them to the next level of engagement (cognitive and emotional), they’re uninterested.  The response: “this is what our customers say they want”.  Which, of course, isn’t what they need.

It gets worse when supposedly more advanced tools are proselytized. I recently sampled one system promoting their advanced memory model.  And the free-to-air course  on learning science was broken!  It failed on a couple of dimensions beyond drilling rote memory about one thing. That’s not a good example to be showing.  Yet people who don’t know better might be enthused.

For a quick test, check to see if there’s anyone who understands learning on the executive team of a vendor. You’ll see all the business roles filled.  Some might have advisory boards composed of learning folks, but it’s not clear what role they play.

And I get it.  Unfortunately, as an industry, we’re not informed consumers. I see continual conceptually fuzzy promotion of ideas, and even societies offering white papers on the latest buzzwords.  It’s business, and with business folks in charge (and shareholders to assuage), they’ll do what people want.  Yet this isn’t the professionalism we need.

Ok, so this rant doesn’t taint all companies, but it’s too true for many or most. It’s all too easy to look at the typical offerings and point out the fundamental flaws in what they’re doing, if you know how we learn. And you should.

So, I’ll continue on my crusade for us as an industry to lift our game. I hereby offer to assist any learning technology that wants to put it’s money where it’s mouth is to help them understand learning science, build it into their products, and help them promote the benefits. And I likewise offer any organization  using learning technology to help them lift their game and be better consumers.  I’ve done both before, and am ready to assist others. Because our learners need us to represent their true interests.

 

Listening

by 1 Comment

Listening, as I mentioned, in this case to  Guy Wallace.  As one of the premier promoters of evidence-based design, he responded to my question  about what to post on with:

Any “How Tos” using methods, tools and techniques that you‘ve found to work in L&D and Performance Improvement.

Since I am a fan of Guy’s work, I thought I should answer!  Now, obviously I don’t work in a typical L&D environment, so this list is somewhat biased. So I mentally ran through memorable projects from the past and looked for the success factors. Besides the best principles I usually advocate, here are a few tips and tricks that I’ve used over the years:

  • Engage.  Obviously, I wrote a book about this, but some of the quick things I do include:
    • embed the decisions they should be making in contexts where they make sense
    • as Henry Jenkins put it: “put the player in a role they  want to be in”
    • exaggerate the context
    • minimize the distractions
    • hook the learners in emotionally from the start
  • Decisions. I find that working with the objectives for learning projects, it’s critical to focus on the decisions that learners will ultimately be making.  I argue that what will make the difference for organizations, going forward, will be better decisions. And it keeps the discussion from focusing on knowledge. Knowledge is needed, but it’s not central.
  • Brainstorming. When working a strategy session with clients, I seed the discussion before hand with the challenges and background material, and ask that everyone think on their own before we begin collaboration.
  • Better ‘Pair and Share’.  If, in brainstorming, you should think individually before collectively, so should you do so in all forms. So I trialed a ‘pair and share’ where I asked everyone to:
    • think on the questions (asking for 2 things) first,
    • then share with another,
    • and try to reach agreement
    • (I polled the first audience I trialed it on, and they said that the discussion was better, FWIW).
  • Shared language. I have found it valuable, when starting a new project, to run a little ‘presentation’ where I present some of the models that I’m bringing to the table (that’s why I‘m there ;), so we’re starting from a shared understanding. And of course I’ve reviewed materials of theirs beforehand so I can use their terminology.  Educating clients is part of a Quinnovation engagement!
  • Test.  In making the Workplace of the Future project with Learnnovators,  we were barreling along full tilt, working on the second module, and I was getting increasingly worried about the fact that we hadn’t tested the first.  We finally did, relatively informally, but still got valuable feedback that changed our design somewhat. Similarly on other projects, get feedback early and often.
  • Visualize. My diagramming bent had me map out the workflow of a client’s production process, to identify opportunities to tweak the process to bring in better learning science with minimal interruption.  In general, I will often jump up to the whiteboard and try to represent what I’m hearing to see if it’s shared.
  • Prototype.  Similar to the above, I will often mock up what I’m thinking about (in sort of a ‘ape with a crayon’ level of fidelity), to help communicate the idea; e.g. some sort of walkthrough.  I find that only a percentage of the audience can imagine what the experience will be without getting somewhat concrete. (And, yes, they do then complain about the production values, despite the tradeoff of cost versus value.  Sigh.)
  • Get the context.  I generally try to understand the whole ecosystem (ala ‘the revolution‘) before I engage in specifics.  What are the goals, stakeholders, what’s already being done and by whom, etc. It’s important to re-contextualize ‘best principles’, and that requires  knowing the context.
  • Architecture. Thinking through things using a design thinking approach and a systems-thinking perspective, I’ve tried to think of platforms, not just solutions. It might be content architectures, ecosystem elements, but it’s thinking in terms of systems, not just tactics.
  • Pragmatism. One final approach that has been beneficial is thinking about how to approximate the best with a budget.  I used to talk about ‘what would you do if you had magic’, and then see how close you can get with the resources to hand. It’s a heuristic that often has led to an innovative yet viable solution.

Looking at them, I see that they generally reflect my overall focus on aligning what we do with how we think, work, and learn. Your thoughts?

Let’s talk

by Leave a Comment

“Conversations are the stem cells of learning.” – Jay Cross

I recently read something that intrigued me. I couldn’t find it again, so I’ll paraphrase the message.  As context, the author was talking about how someone with a different world view was opining about the views of the author. And his simple message was “if you want to know what I, or an X, thinks, ask me or an X. Don’t ask the anti-X.”  And I think that’s important.  We need to talk together to figure things out. We have to get out of our comfort zone.

It’s all too evident that we seem to be getting  more divisive. And it’s too easy these days to only see stuff that you agree with.  You can choose to only follow channels that are simpatico with your beliefs, and even supposedly unbiased platforms actually filter what you see to keep you happy. Yet, the real way to advance, to learn, is to see opposing sides and work to find a viable resolution.

Innovation depends on creative tension, and we need to continue to innovate.  So we need to continue to engage.  Indeed, my colleague Harold Jarche points to the book  Collaborating with the Enemy  and argues that’s a  good thing.  The point is that when things are really tough, we have to go beyond our boundaries.  And life is getting more complex.

So I keep connections with a few people who don’t think like me, and I try to understand the things that they say. I don’t want to listen just to those who think like me, I recognize that I need to understand their viewpoints if we’re going to make progress.  Of course, I can’t guarantee reciprocity, but I can recognize that’s not my problem.

And I read what academic research has to say. I prefer peer-review to opinion, although I keep an open mind as to the problems with academic research as well. I have published enough, and reviewed many submissions, so I recognize the challenges.  Yet it’s better than the alternative ;).

This is, however, the way we have to be as professionals. We have to understand other viewpoints.  It matters to our world, but even in the small little worlds we inhabit professionally.  We need to talk.  And face to face. It matters, it turns out.  Which may not be a surprise.  Still, getting together with colleagues, attending events, and talking, even disagreeing (civilly) are all necessary.

So please, talk.  Engage.  Let’s figure stuff out and make things better. Please.