RavingLEARNatics

Free & open learning

More ammunition for the Learning Democracy revolution . . . a very interesting video based on Anya Kamenetz's book DIY U . . .

Games, stories, learning

Computer games is the fastest growing form of media. Games have the ability to motivate, compel and engage us. There are a number of lessons learned from the gaming industry that fit perfectly with the concept of the Learning Democracy and should be applied to the learning programs we create.

"The fundamental premise behind most gaming experiences is the journey that participants are taken on - a journey through levels of increasing difficulty toward the eventual mastery of the game. During this journey, players can remain engaged for hours, days, and even weeks at a time." The previous excerpt was from an article in the May issue of Training + Development magazine by Ben Betts, CEO of HTC, titled The Path to Engagement: Lessons From Game Designers. There are some great takeaways from that article as well as a fantastic TED talk by Tom Chatfield: 7 ways games reward the brain:

1. "Define a starting point and objective, but not the path to be taken" Betts suggests. Give the audience choices and the ability to make decisions that will impact the path they take. We're not talking multiple choice options or the ability to continue by clicking the next button, but real choices. We are all different. We process information differently, we learn differently, we have different personality types. Then why do we have to all follow the same path in a course to achieve the learning objective? Because it is most convenient to build it that way. The reality is that it's, much more effective and efficient to simply give the learner a "starting point, an objective, and a method for assessing when they have reached that objective . . . " as Betts says. When we specify the path the audience needs to take, it makes it an unpleasant experience for many, and it's just not necessary. An unspecified path adds an element of uncertainty. According to Tom Chatfield, a known reward excites people, but what really gets them going is the uncertain reward - not knowing if or when they would get it. When we can't quite predict something with certainty we want to go back and learn more. All of this makes a great case for giving the audience autonomy (remember the Learning Democracy).  Give them multiple long and short terms aims/tasks. By accomplishing these long and short term tasks, the audience makes decisions that force the story to evolve in different ways. This also builds confidence - games make players braver. The user becomes more willing to take risks, to try things. It becomes harder to discourage them. So let them make decisions and influence the direction, allowing the experience to evolve in different ways.
2. "Stop measuring page numbers and start measuring experience" - Page numbers and progress indicators . . . blah. According to Betts, this only "gives the illusion of progress and is an example of measuring the wrong thing . . . the learner believes that if she clicks the next button x more times, she will have completed the learning." Games use a more valuable and realistic way of measuring progress by giving feedback, rewarding effort every time you do something and allowing the audience to reflect on the journey and compare their progress against that of their peers. It's hard to learn if you can't link consequences to actions and feedback and results do this. According to Chatfield, "games offer intense emotional rewards to users, individually and collectively."  Because games can measure every single thing a user does, it allows us to determine the rate, nature, type and intensity of rewards that most effectively keep users engaged. Also, in games users get more "experience points" for digging deeper, uncovering more, spending more time perfecting a particular skill. You get more points for more important actions. As Betts says, the audience is rewarded for "learning the secrets to success and the tactics to win. They know how they did something the first time, and they adapt their strategy to do it better the next time." 
3. "Play with people, not computers" - Chatfield says that "collaboration really excites humans. People want to work with other people to solve problems and achieve things. "Most games, like courses, are designed for the audience to go through it once. Adding a social dimension can change that. It shifts the focus from the scripted part of the course or game and adds the element of other people and their experience into the mix. It lets them influence the content and the learning experience, again from the Learning Democracy. 

 

 

 

Break some rules

As the US moves into a phase where being innovative and entrepreneurial is becoming more and more critical in the face of the leveling field of worldwide competition, we look to two key elements that will help drive us there:

• creativity
• willingness to break rules

In the article Rebellion of an Innovation Mom, by Anne-Marie Slaughter, we learn about creativity and innovation and how we may be stifling it as parents if we aren't careful. This can also be transfered to the corporate learning environment.

Looking at creativity, Slaughter tells us that what is critical for nurturing creativity is "random association and connection" and down time that allows the brain to "run and turn over seemingly disconnected bits of information, images, and ideas." Experts suggest that allowing for periods of randomness to our lives allows this to happen. Too many of our e-learning courses are built to hold the hand of the audience and force feed them information. We rarely allow the audience to try and make sense of disconnected information and reflect on how things fit together. Shame on us. And by the way, an added benefit is that reflection is an important element of retention.  

Being entrepreneurial means developing something that doesn't already exist, whether creating something completely new, or transferring an idea that works in one space to another. Often this requires the entrepreneur to defy conventional wisdom. Slaughter says that to nurture the willingness to "persevere in the face of deep skepticism or outright opposition" it is critical that people are in some way "rewarded for breaking the rules, not meeting our expectations by jumping through an endless series of hoops." Tying this to the corporate learning experience means allowing more autonomy in learning. Holding the audience to certain required performance standards, but allowing them to break the learning rules sometimes and explore. 

Slaughter also touches on competition and cooperation. Competition "is important for later success of any kind, conventional or entrepreneurial," but cooperation and collaboration are what drives a key part of the creative process called the verification or revision stage. Verification and revision often comes from "tossing ideas around among members of a trusted group, as does the courage to launch something new."

Creativity, willingness to break rules, cooperation . . . The new competitive business world requires a workforce that can make quick, creative, effective decisions at the edges of the enterprise. Nurturing creativity, a willingness to break rules, and collaboration are three steps to achieving this. After all, this is the age of the Learning Democracy. 

What We Know About Learning

This is a combination re-post and new post. When originally posted I had failed to reference the folks that I had gleaned the "People learn best" list from (see below). I know that some of the list is from author Jay Cross and I believe there are a few bullets from author and learning leader Roger Shank. My bad for missing the reference originally. It was accidental. The list is below.

Having had this brought to my attention, it got me thinking about plagurism, then people in general, then the Learning Democracy. I had a similar experience in the past where someone had posted something I had originally written and failed to reference me. I quietly sent them an email mentioning this oversight and they quicky rectified things. My first reaction when seeing it was that it was a mistake. I tend to look at people as mostly honest, out there working hard every day to do the right thing for themselves, their families, their friends, their employer. I believe that when people know what the right thing is, most do it. They want to do the right thing. They want to take responsibility for their lives, their career. And that's where the Learning Democracy concept fits into this story. Most people want to be successful in their careers. They want to do the right thing. They may need guidance in finding the learning content they need, or a little nudge, but if they understand the importance, the impact, and can maintain control of how, when and where, they will do the right thing. I truly believe that. Sure there are some bad apples out there, but at some point they'll fall off the tree and roll away, and even they have the potential to bring life to a new tree.

Here's is the list, again, my apologies to Jay and Roger . . . 

 

People learn best when they:

• Know what’s in it for them and deem it relevant
• Understand what’s expected of them
• Connect with other people
• Are challenged to make choices
• Feel safe about showing what they do and do not know
• Receive information in small packets
• Get frequent progress reports
• Learn things close to the time they need them
• Are encouraged by coaches or mentors
• Learn from a variety of modalities
• Teach others
• Get positive reinforcement for small victories
• Make and correct mistakes
• Try, try, and try again
• Reflect on learning and apply it’s lessons
• Experience a situation, decide how to deal with the issues that arise in that situation, and are coached through their mistakes by experts.

 

Old thinking on corporate training

Why is it that most corporate training focuses on content and not audience? In other situations where there is content and an audience, the focus of successful companies is on the audience. Let's take marketing and selling products for example . . . Successful companies know their audience, know the audience's need, where their audience accesses information and how the audience prefers to have the content delivered - maybe a print ad, maybe a radio or TV commercial, maybe a catalog, or maybe a short story-based online show. In the corporate training world the focus is on the content, deliver the same content to everyone, in pretty much the same way. "Hey, we know what the audience needs and they'll take it how we give it to them" seems to be the attitude. Well, a funny thing is happening, a peaceful revolution is gathering steam, and it's personalized, and it's driven by the new economy and new workforce. Here it comes . . . 

Building a "Foundation" for Growing Companies.

Many small companies grow despite having a frail "foundation" of "straw and mud." They survive, to a point, because of a good product or concept and hard work.  Then, slowly the foundation begins to crumble because of internal issues and stresses that occur without good values, systems, processes and a strong culture.

Effective companies most always have solid "foundations" with "deep footings" consisting of well-defined processes and procedures and agreed upon values as well as effective training programs that create a customer and employee oriented culture.

Much of my coaching is with small to medium sized, fast growth companies that are in need of a foundation that will support their expansion.  The first step in building a foundation is a "Practical Planning Session."  This session is facilitated using portions of a strategic planning session and facets of the basic SWOT analysis.

Do all small companies need a solid foundation and strong culture?  Not always.  A small company can be successful, to a point, without the foundation but that company will not continue profitable growth and will stall without the underpinnings described in this post.

I once worked with a $100M service company that, after experiencing the pitfalls of a weak culture and sloppy processes rebuilt the foundation.  It was time consuming, occasionally painful two-year process that resulted in a company that was recognized as the finest in the industry, bar none.

This "brains in gear" planning session identifies and prioritizes the company's needs and opportunities.  Action steps are created and the final product becomes the beams and joists for the foundation.  Completion of the foundation almost always includes the creation of the following components:  Mission, purposes, policies, procedures, values, training, budgeting, dashboards, job descriptions and communication processes.  We focus on defining responsibilities and accountability and operating with integrity at the clearest and deepest level.

The plan and foundation is most effectively built with input and assistance from people at all levels and in all disciplines of the organization.  Edicts from the top down seldom work as effectively as when people can say, "We created this company ourselves." Completion of the foundation is a time consuming and ongoing project but, done correctly, creates the culture, rules and processes needed to do the right things and do things right.  Owners that build a profitable company with a strong foundation and effective culture are rewarded with higher multiples when they sell and the satisfaction of knowing that their company was "built to last."

I work with companies that have excellent foundations as well as those that that don't understand the importance of strong values and clearly defined processes.  The amount of work is similar in both organizations but only one benefits from the payback and satisfaction of untamed ambition joining with rock solid systems.  Priceless.

Successful companies will then identify and effectively communicate with pit-bull determination those values and processes important to the core foundation of the company.  Explosive impact and growth occurs when management inspires your team to execute steadfast company processes and values even when no one is watching.

 

Broken Instructional Design

According to Don Norman, professor of computer science and psychology at Northwestern and co-founder of Nielsen Norman Group one of the problems with most instructional design is that the content is laid out in a very logical structure that is very clear about each step. “In my opinion, that’s faulty for two reasons," Norman says, "First, logical structures tend to be very dull and boring—students have no idea why they’re learning it. Second, you don’t work to retain information that’s just given to you. When someone works at getting the information, they structure that information in their head so they can find it later. Basically, you remember what you care about.”