Awesome search tools
When I was 17, I went to Art College to study Graphic Design. Art was the passion that I hoped would ultimately lead to my dream job. Six months later, I left the course, and went into full-time work, but NOT in the Graphic Design field. Why?! Was I nuts? No. Although there was definitely a ‘problem’ with me.
I couldn’t get my head around the concept that what I was producing was perfectly good enough for the course I was on. It was good enough for the lecturer, and dare I say, it was probably good enough for the exam board too, had I hung around long enough to find out.
I always thought that whatever I was working on could be even better. I wanted to tweak things, to ‘just make one more change’, to make the piece of work ‘perfect’. This led to things being overworked, over engineered, and handed in late – ultimately, a complete waste of my time and energy, with no additional reward.
What I failed to understand is that 80% is usually good enough. Eighty percent is good enough to do the job well, and most importantly, it is enough to get on with doing other jobs well.
If this scenario sounds familiar to you, you could be looking at a case of experience rot.
Jared M Spool, an expert in website and UI design explains it like this:
Chances are all those features you’ve been adding to your design are hurting your user experience. Every feature that’s squeezed in, in the name of giving your design a competitive edge, has been making your design less competitive.
What if we apply the same theory to designing a piece of learning content? Are those extra bits and pieces that you are putting in really beneficial to your learner? What is your motivation to keep tweaking? If you need to throw a kitchen sink’s worth of bells and whistles at a course to make it engaging, perhaps you need to go back and take another look at the course content you are working from.
Experience rot says that adding in unnecessary content is actually counterproductive. You are not just adding features, you’re adding complexity to the design, and therefore decreasing the quality of the overall user experience. And, much like rot, once it sets in, it’s a nightmare to get rid of. We are all great at adding in new features, the new ‘must haves’ but rarely do we take stock and see if there is anything that we don’t need anymore.
So we know what experience rot is, but how do we get rid of it – or better still, how do we avoid it taking hold in the first place?
The first step is to actually listen to your learners. You need to create a minimal visible product (MVP) and get plenty of feedback on it. If your testers are happy with what you have produced, and it meets the training need, you could already be done. Unfortunately, that is a pretty rare occurrence, but your first effort could be closer to the true need than originally thought – just think how much time you could potentially save with this method.
The second step is to take the feedback and then add in only what is being asked for. You then get feedback on v2.0. If you are tempted to add more bells and whistles at this stage, stop and ask yourself if it is genuinely adding any real value. If the answer is no – leave it out. If the answer is maybe – leave it out.
This approach means that you are giving the learner what they need, rather than being driven by that nagging doubt in your mind that you could make it even better. Who knows best what learners want or need? You, or them?
As great as this approach is in theory, L&D teams or consultants often dictate what they think the learner needs. This is where you need to have that very difficult conversation, and occasionally, say ‘no’ – and stand your ground.
The best way to fight experience rot is to say no to everything except the most essential of features. Deliberately slowing development down to only include well thought out enhancements that will keep experience rot at bay.
Saying no should always be in the designer’s toolkit, but in the excitement of producing something new or ‘cool’, it often gets overlooked. It takes a lot of willpower to keep a design simple.
Maybe we need to consider that perfection is rarely the key to success. Perhaps we should accept 80% as the new benchmark to aim for, so long as it delivers a course that really does make someone’s job easier or provokes a change in behaviour.
Rather than busting a gut trying to make the course that last 20% percent ‘better’, why not get to work on the next most pressing piece of learning on your agenda?
Think of it this way: two courses at 80% or one at 100% that was probably delivered late. I know which would be more beneficial to your business.
The original post of this document can be found of the CG Kineo website, here
This may be a bold statement, but trust me when I say, “Your learners don’t need motivating to complete learning”.
Now, I expect many of your are now shaking your heads, and muttering to yourself that “he doesn’t know my learners” – but just hear me out on this one, your learners are demanding input from you. Input that will help them do their job faster and better, which can only be a good thing for you and them. The consequences of not providing that training shouldn’t be underestimated.
The message for L&D teams from learners is loud and clear: “If you don’t provide it for me, I will go and find it myself”. Is the shift of power changing? Is this the L&D world’s equivalent of football’s player power?
The answer is probably yes, which is, understandably, making L&D teams more than a little nervous:
Instead of being nervous, we should embrace this desire to search for answers, encourage it even. Offering easy access to information has to be a better training approach than sheep-dipping everyone through the same course, irrespective of its relevance to their role (or their desire to complete it).
Looking on the bright side
If L&D teams took time to listen to what the learners were asking them for, their message is actually a very positive one. The learners are telling the L&D functions that they are:
Learners want learning, but they only want the learning that they need now, and in a format that they choose.
They are happy to search for it. I don’t need to sit through a 3-hour training course on how to replace the filters in a Dyson before I buy one. However, I know exactly where to look for a video clip that shows me how if and when the need arises.
They have the skills to access it. We should be confident that our learners will ‘get it’, or at least work it out in a short space of time.
They know what training and development they need. More importantly, only they know what training they want.
Armed with this knowledge, all the L&D team need to provide is the right content, at the right time, using the most relevant media. This can, in many cases, be summed up by the phrase “Fewer courses, more resources”.
Bite-sized continues to be the way forward. However as we move into 2016, the elephant in the room still appears to be the L&D teams “requirement” to prove that everyone in the organisation has been “trained”, by creating endless, compulsory training programmes.
Of course there is a place for a structured compliance programme, but I wonder if a 90 second video, animation or an infographic is any less beneficial to a learner than a two hour face-to-face workshop. If the short interaction manages to provide the information the learner needs, when they need it, and also motivates them to change behaviour once they have watched it; surely that is no bad thing.
This demand from learners to shift to short, on-demand, digital pieces can only be seen as putting learning technology companies in a strong position to continue to grow – assuming that we continue to listen to our learners, and continue to innovate.
Nurturing a team of learners, with a thirst for knowledge and growth, requires a change of mindset. They know what they want; we just need to get onboard to deliver that.
With thanks to: Paul Axtell
Steve Jobs insisted that every item on a meeting agenda have a designated person responsible for that task and any follow-up work that happened. He called that person the DRI—the Directly Responsible Individual. He knew the public accountability would ensure that a project or task would actually get done, and he wanted to set clear, organized instructions for his team to follow.
It sounds simple enough, and yet the majority of managers and leaders completely fail to do this. We’ve all left meetings feeling good about what we discussed only to later wonder why so little happened as a result. Where did the momentum go?
There are a number of reasons why the productive conversations in a meeting seemingly go nowhere. Attendees are often immediately running to another meeting where their attention shifts to a new set of issues. Or people leave the meeting without clarity about what was agreed upon.
To make sure productivity doesn’t slow after you walk out of the room, do two things after and in between meetings: Quickly send out clear and concise meeting notes and follow up on the commitments made.
As the Chinese proverb goes, “The palest ink is better than the best memory.” If you don’t capture the conversation and put into a form that can be easily retrieved later, the thinking and the agreements can be lost.
Meeting notes aren’t a necessary burden. They’re a powerful way to influence others. They help inform people who weren’t there about what happened and remind those who were there about what agreements they made. You can use them to keep everyone on the same page and focused on what you all need to get done before you meet next.
If you are working to reduce the number of people who attend your meetings, the notes take on more importance because people love to be included and informed. Sharing a summary of the meeting is an important part of working on engagement.
Here’s what works: Distribute concise, clear notes about the meeting. Historically, minutes were like court transcriptions, capturing everything that was said during the meeting. This is not what you want. A single page will suffice for most meetings. The intent is not to re-create the discussion but to capture the key points and the specific commitments for each topic, so that non-attendees have a sense of what happened and all have a record of who will take further action.
These notes should state each topic you discussed, the key takeaways, and a list of specific actions that will be taken, by which people, and by when.
Write and distribute the meeting summary within 24 hours, if not sooner. Your ability to remember and capture the essence of each conversation lessens with each passing hour. Sending the summary out within an hour or by the end of the day also demonstrates a sense of urgency.
Follow up on commitments
Persistence is a key influence skill. If you want anything to happen, you must follow up, follow up, and follow up.
A university president once asked me to come do a training for a group of faculty and alumni because he thought they lacked leadership skills. He had pulled the group together two years prior to discuss starting a new school of journalism. They had a productive meeting and everyone was excited about the project. He had told them he was willing and able to provide whatever support they needed as they got the initiative off the ground. But two years later, nothing had happened and the president was convinced it was because the people in that meeting didn’t have the right skills.
But, in reality, he didn’t have a new journalism school because he hadn’t followed up. If he’d checked in with the group two weeks after the meeting, then followed up every few weeks until the project was up and running, it likely would’ve been a different story. Perhaps he would’ve learned that people in the room did have some skill deficits but he could’ve helped take care of those while they pushed the project forward.
Often managers, like this president, think that people are self-starters—natural leaders who only need an idea and the autonomy to pursue it. Talented, committed people do not always do what they say they will do, and we shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t. People are pulled in all different directions and overwhelmed with too much work. If you want a project to be completed, you have to follow up closely and consistently. Otherwise, rich ideas easily fall by the wayside.
Some managers are concerned that close follow-up might be interpreted as micromanaging. They don’t want to be accused of not trusting people to perform. In reality, consistent follow-up is a necessary part of project leadership.
Here’s what works:
Games in education is a hot topic these days. Teachers are trying to figure out how to use video games to benefit the education of their students. That’s difficult when entertainment games and educational games seem to exist as separate industries catering to separate worlds.
But somehow, it worked in the 90s. Blockbuster educational games resulted from a collaboration between education experts and game designers. Unlike today, the industries overlapped. Equal focus on creativity, educational value, and fun resulted in games children wanted to play.
Giving it time
In 2015, it’s reasonable to expect an app to be created within thirty days. New technologies and programs are produced at an alarmingly fast rate.
In the 90s, The Logical Journey of the Zoombinis and other highly popular games were often in development for over a year, in part because the developers tested multiple versions on children. It wasn’t about making a ton of money. It was about finding where peak learning and peak fun met.
As CD-ROMs shot up in popularity, there was a demand for mass production. Retail prices sunk. Gamasutra.com explains that, with minimal profit margins, “the ability to fund the long prototype times and high production values… slid away with every game.” The education games were no longer economically viable.
The Zoombini generation all grown up
The kids who once played Zoombini, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego, and The Oregon Trail are now having kids of their own and looking for the modern day equivalent that doesn’t exist.
Is the nostalgia factor enough to embark on a new golden age of educational video games? A modern version of Logical Journey of the Zoombinis is being developed by a nonprofit, TERC, thanks to a Kickstarter campaign, and it might be the start of something.
Do you think educational games can make a comeback? And if so, can they stick around this time?
Image credits: Creative commons
Watch GSummit SF 2014 videos on-demand from our partner FORA.tv
The post What Made the 90s the Golden Age of Educational Games? appeared first on Gamification Co.
(Via Gamification Co)
Following on from very a successful seminar session on gaming mechanics at LT15, and the subsequent LSG webinar on the same subject, one thing has become very clear – gaming in learning is a highly controversial subject.
Some people refuse to recognise gaming as a learning medium, whereas others love the idea of using gaming, but aren’t sure where to start. Others are already embracing the chaos, and seeing impactful results, like McDonald’s. But what if games are more than just a gimmick, and could add real business value to your organisation?
Here we tackle some of the most common learning game myths and show that learning games are for everyone, not just the brave minority.
All too often we hear: “Gaming is unprofessional – my staff aren’t 16 year old Xbox fanatics, so gaming isn’t relevant for my business’ learning”.
For many, gaming is seen as being ‘childish’ or only relevant to a small minority of the workforce. In fact, there’s a lot of debate around whether gaming actually has a place in workplace learning at all…
This is by far the most common concern around introducing gaming into workplace learning. We know that perception of the validity of a game within an organisation is critical, particularly when it comes to compliance or mandatory training. What if only Gen Y want to play the games you design?
Trust us, everyone wants to play games.
When used in the right context, gaming can have a place – as long as it is serving a purpose (and not just there because the Learning Designer thought it was time to design a game). Use elements of what makes games work, and embed those elements into your learning design.
The compliance piece is still there, but now it becomes challenging, engaging and (dare I say it) fun to complete. Age is just a number, and as long as you’re incorporating the key mechanics of great gaming design such as competition and reward, learners will keep on coming back for more, regardless of how old they are.
After all, isn’t designing a piece of learning that staff enjoy and actually want to do the holy grail of elearning design?
First things first: we need to tackle this whole ‘gamification’ thing and the stigma that surrounds it. If you know you will get pushback for suggesting a game element to your organisation, simply don’t call it a game (‘G-word’ probably isn’t a viable option either).
Sounds simple, but it works. For years the RAF have been covertly using games (and saving money) when training pilots.
Do you think RAF pilots would say that they play games to learn? No, they would say that they use ‘simulations’ or ‘scenario-based learning’ – but aren’t those just different words for games? Both are perfectly acceptable forms of learning, which, as it happens, rely totally on gaming mechanics to make them work successfully.
The flight simulators that they use simulate the real world. They grant the user the opportunity to practice their skills in a ‘safe’ environment, and, with practice, help them to improve their performance, or hone their skills.
Would trainee pilots say the simulators they use are childish or patronising? Of course not, but then their bosses probably don’t have that opinion either. The RAF recognises the benefits of letting learners try, try, and try again, in a safe environment whilst offering constant and immediate feedback, to achieve better results when it really matters.
Aren’t tangible outcomes and better results what we are all trying to achieve when we design a piece of learning? Regardless of whether it’s called a learning game or not, we should be focusing on learning outcomes and results, not what the learning is called.
It is a myth that games need to be multi-million dollar 3D extravaganzas. Asteroids didn’t have that in the 80s, nor does Candy Crush today. Both have proven to be hugely successful games that people continue to come back to. It is all about the game mechanics, not the whizz-bang and bling bling…
As learning games don’t necessarily have to rely on the use of the highest-end kit, graphics or sound to make them effective, you can use gaming in your business for less than you might imagine.
Even if you are creating your own learning in-house, you can use elements of gaming design that will enhance your elearning at no additional cost, other than, perhaps, investing a little more time at the design planning stage.
You may be thinking that by creating learning games, you have made a commitment to deliver the next Grand Theft Auto; and you may be worried that learners have high expectations about what a game should offer.
However, their high expectations are not necessarily what you might imagine them to be. Our feedback tells us that, in general, learners are looking for something that makes them ‘feel’ how they do when they play those more complex, Hollywood-inspired games.
It seems that whizzy 3D graphics and surround sound don’t necessarily make a good game; rather the logic employed, the sweep of a perfectly judged learning curve, the story telling level design – basically the mechanics of the game, are what makes a game the experience that people love.
When you are considering the look and feel of a learning game, why not ask your users for their input. Second guessing your audience’s perceptions can cost you hours in wasted time.
They already know what works for them, so tap into that knowledge.
At City & Guilds Kineo, we are often asked if games actually add any value to a learning journey. We all know that measuring the ROI of any piece of learning is never a straight forward process, and using gaming is no different.
Before we look at how to measure ROI, we need remind ourselves of the benefits to the learner that using a game/simulation can bring. A key point to remember is the ability to practice – and make mistakes – in a safe environment, prior to being let loose in ‘the real world’.
To demonstrate the impact a game has on the business, we need to look beyond the traditional, “how many people have completed it” measure, and look at actual business results that have changed since the users completed the learning. Allowing learners to practice, by using game mechanics, helps to change behaviours, rather than just increase knowledge.
Because of this, test results aren’t a good measure for ROI – instead we need to look at wider business results to indicate a culture change. This could be an increase in sales, customer satisfaction scores, reduced staff turnover or other success indicators your business may have.
This is exactly what McDonald’s did. Using pre-existing data, they adopted a simple model to help measure the success of the Till Training Game (and the results were astonishing).
The key here is gradually progressing with learning games. Your industry may not be ready to jump head-long into gaming just yet, but you could definitely be ready to adopt a range of gaming mechanics into your elearning.
So don’t go all in: you need to crawl and walk before you learn to run. Instead, why not pick your favourite gaming element and subtly add it into your next learning design? Measure the results and that just might be enough to convince those budget holders to commit to a learning game next time round.
Simple things like including a league table based on the results from a compliance quiz, or increasing the difficulty as a user works through a number of scenarios are simple techniques that make a difference to your learners’ experience, all thanks to games and gaming mechanics.
And if the boss asks, just don’t mention the ‘G’ word.
If you’re interested in talking to us more about how learning games could make an impact in your organisation, get in touch. We’d love to help.
I have just completed my self assessment, and came out as a “Mastermind”.
Not sure how accurate that is, but I’ll take it!
Why not take the test yourself now – The link is below.