The Total Learner Experience

Prior Knowledge and Proper Leveling

Yesterday I spent a long time ensconced with Lynda.com working through ActionScripting 3.0 for Flash. Now, I'm not a super-sophisticated Flash user or ActionScripting writer, but I know my way around. If you don't know Lynda's training, they structure the courses through a series of 2-5 minute long screen capture videos with voice over. The courses do not offer clearly stated prerequisite knowledge and I wasted long minutes watching videos defining variables, functions and repetitive syntax. I work from the assumption that most people who are working with a particularly specific programming language through an expensive subscription tutorial service likely know what a variable is.

I wouldn't even be complaining about the slow step by step nature of the lessons if it weren't that when they got to the portion that I wanted to know, interactive buttons, it suddenly fast-forwarded adding multiple concepts all at once. After overexplaining basic syntax, it underexplained a multi-layer, multi-movieclip while purportedly teaching how to make a button work. Rather than demonstrating how to control action in a simple, reusable manner, they instead embedded it within a much more complex framework, which makes it difficult for this user to transfer it to her own purposes.

So after suffering through information that was overly basic, I was then overwhelmed by the complexity of the next lessons. I had a similar experience at a four day FileMaker Pro training session. The first day was review for me. The instructor went over database structure -- topics like "one to many relationships". I must mention that there were only 2 people in this training, both of whom had a fair bit database experience. Neither of us needed hours of discussion of fields, tables and relationships. Day 2 was moderately useful. The information covered was graspable. Day 3 and 4 however were pure torture. We breezed through layers of proprietary knowledge that was highly specific and highly detailed.

Throughout the four days I kept wondering, who is this training for? There was no database manager who could find all four days useful. I "earned" a certificate, but I didn't feel like I was well-served by the 28 hours that I sat in that room. 

The missing component in both these experiences was the acknowledgment that these skills would not come until we had time to practice them. There was no time for reflection or synthesis built in or encouraged by these training experiences. I understand the culture that creates training like this, but I think it's wrong-headed to omit time for people to actually ingest what they are "learning".

-Dolly

Serving your learner

My natural inclination is to design for the imagination. I've long believed that if you give students the best tools to create with, that they then can transfer that knowledge to other applications. By the end of my time at the k-8 school, where I taught the same students for 3 consecutive years, I had 3rd grade students creating Flash animations and writing action-scripting. To me this was a major accomplishment, indicative of incredible potential for these students to become producers of multimedia, interactive projects. Every year, however, the complaint was that the students weren't learning how to format papers in Word. The parents saw computer class as a support to the other academic classes, not as a curriculum in its own right.

Now that I am working with students who have been traditionally under-served, I wonder about my own obligations to provide opportunities for academic success. Should this curriculum emphasize more immediate academic skills, formatting papers, learning powerpoint? Or should I emphasize their personal expression and storytelling through exposure to professional graphics, audio and video software applications.

I already know where I stand on this. I am still in touch with the majority of my inspirational art teachers. I learned more about how to present myself professionally from them than any of my drudgerous academic classes. I don't know if I can inspire disaffected students with any software app, but I feel that it's more likely in Alice, than it is with Excel.

charming game #1

While there are plenty of games that get it wrong, I thought I might review a couple of games that get it right. Word Vine is one such game. It's premise is simple: link words to create inter-connected compound words on branching relationship. An easy level uses tree, sauce, apple, trunk. I'm stuck on a hard level with time, tower, prime, bell, cow, cash, machine, gun, minister, ivory, tower, zone. So what do I like about this game this morning (and last night, for a really long time)?

• Simple task-- It is well within my skill set to make compound words and to click and drag small icons onto a hotspot.
• "Educational"-- I'm not shooting stuff. I wouldn't be anyway, but I like figuring out this little verbal puzzle.
• Visual-- Solving the harder puzzles requires tapping into some region of the brain that handles visual relationships; it's difficult to solve the harder puzzle (at least for me) without physically (virtually) dragging the word shapes onto some of the twining branches.
• Aesthetics-- It's pretty. I like the soft greens.

I'm always trying to figure out how to combine content and gameplay. I can envision a social studies content game which links concepts, dates, and historical figures. How about a branching vine of German philosophers or early 20th Century artists?

--Dolly

Crafting the Total Learner Experience

I design a lot of eLearning... but I also am a learner myself, and find myself taking quite a few online classes (especially since I'm pursuing a graduate degree online).

One of the reasons I think your eLearning probably sucks is because you may have not considered the "total learner experience" when you designed it.

Recently I had a moment of epiphany. You know what I mean, I’m sure you’ve had them as well. For me it led to what you’re reading now. I was in line at Starbucks, closing in on being late to a meeting, trying to beat the clock and get a jolt of caffeine before having to commence with my standard dog and pony show, when it hit me: Too often during my busy day, while I grind out deliverables, get content written, check off to-dos... somewhere along this busy road of work life that I travel every day, I lost a sense of purpose.  

As I left Starbucks with my venti, non-fat, triple shot, it became so clear to me: where was the learner? Did he or she even matter anymore? I had lost the sole purpose of what I should be doing: making sure I create the type of learning intervention that would not only transfer knowledge to improve performance, but also engage and motivate to action. It really should be all about the learner!

As you consider for yourself what a "total learner experience" may mean, keep your focus on the learner. Put the brakes on just a bit, slow down, and ponder what you’re doing to them. You may be causing more harm than good.

The bottom line is: until organizations synchronize their business goals with practical, usable employee training focused on engaging and motivating learners, business will continue to suffer compromised performance.

After my insightful Starbucks moment, I began to ponder what a learning experience should mean for the learner. Many instructional designers are focused only on the course content, and not on the Total Learner Experience, or TLE. The learner's experience with a course begins the moment that student starts to access the course. I formulated this definition for the Total Learner Experience:

A successful Total Learner Experience should promote the cohesive integration of informational resources into the overall structure of a course delivery system. A course delivery system contains every component designed to facilitate a learning intervention, including the interface access point for the course, which could be a learning management system, corporate intranet, or a simple web page.

Successful consideration and application of the Total Learner Experience enables the learner to:

• easily find, access, and consume the appropriate learning intervention.
• be engaged, motivated, and enthusiastic throughout the learning intervention.
• transfer understanding into action after the learning intervention is completed.

The critical aspect in implementing a successful TLE involves crafting a non-corrupt, pure, instructional message that meets the objectives for both the organization and the learner.

I'm surprised how often I'm asked to create "shovelware"... just take manuals or slides, add some narration, and then throw them online. On the other extreme, I've seen considerable resources put into high-resolution, non-interactive "video-based" learning that may be pretty, but still perpetuates the "learn by listening" nonsense that has become the buzz of the day.

When you begin your design, be sure to try and keep the total learner experience in mind. It may help you formulate more relevant learning interventions.

Sharp content or content that remains focused on the learner should pass these Six Rules of Design Simplicity:

Six Rules of Design Simplicity
Show meaningful context	Is the information relatable to the learner’s real-world or on-the-job experience?
Present evidence and credibility	Are you able to demonstrate subject matter expertise and relevance to the learner? Will they trust your message?
Remove invasive user interface clutter	Is navigation intuitive? Is the user interface closing in on your content?
Remove irrelevant visuals	Do the visual media support the instruction?
Strip out jargon and corporate-speak	Do acronyms, marketing language, and industry buzzwords run rampant in your content?
Remove barriers to content	Can the learner easily access the content without unnecessary log-ins, restrictive or confusing LMS design, intrusive pop-ups, and uninstalled plug-ins?

mind numbing games

I spend a portion of each day playing this almost mindless game on Facebook. In brief here are the non-linear steps to playing this game:

• View Credits and Purchase Games: Each day I receive a certain number of credits based upon accomplishments and prize purchases. I must log in each day to claim and use these credits or they will expire. I use these credits to purchase the variously valued games offered.
• Play Games: Obstensibly this is the primary reason for the entire game, but it actually takes the least time of all the steps. There are 3 games--Concentration, Bejeweled and Soduku.
• Purchase Prizes: With the points I earn, I purchase prizes in certain sets which then allow me to move up levels, earning further points and playing more difficult puzzles.

Yawn.

But strangely compelling. And I wonder why. Here's what I came up:

• Time Commitment: Besides the daily login, I don't have to spend a preset, particular period of time on the game. My puzzles, my points and my level accomplishments are saved indefinitly and if I go away for a time, there is no penalty.
• Gameplay: While I dislike the Concentration and Bejeweled games--boring and unachievable--the Sudoko game is a well-rendered, easily playable version. Now that I have ascended up the levels, it has become mildly challenging and I'm looking forward to the more difficult stages.
• Achievement: I do feel like I have various methods of achievement within the game, such as best times, percentage accurate, sets of prizes purchased and moving up the levels.
• Easy entry: Besides a short load time, I can play a quick game with other commitment. I don't have to remind myself of the backstory.

So, so what? Clearly when designing educational or training games, these features should be considered and likely included.

-d

Microsoft's Digital Literacy Curriculum Sucks. Surprised?

http://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenship/citizenship/giving/programs/up/digitalliteracy/default.mspx

I work as a program director for a non-profit devoted to mentoring and tech literacy in low income 7-12 graders. As such, I am often looking for useful curriculum related to a wide variety of programs, tasks and skills. I am often in debate with myself and others if it is better to provide the students with practical skills related to secretarial-type work or to explore the outer boundaries with projects in graphics, animation and web design. Our approach is to focus on allowing students to explore and produce with the more creative software while providing auxiliary work with students who see the value of learning the more practical Office suite.

Not wishing to reinvent the wheel, I regularly look for clear, self-directed lessons suited for my students. Oh, and free or cheap, because we're a non-profit. I've looked at Microsoft's Digital Literacy Curriculum several times to see if we can use it to demonstrate proficiency. Now I can hear some of my techie friends slapping themselves in the head, about to eviscerate me because I even mention the Evil Empire. Let me introduce you to the real world outside of your basement and Silicon Valley. Most people out here in the light, don't care or know about Open Source. They are just grateful that they can reliably turn on their computer and spit out some information. Their focus is on their work, not arguing about the benefits of Ubuntu versus Morphix.

Back to the Digital Literacy Curriculum, it sucks. No surprise there, it is a Microsoft product. Now I know I am late to the bandwagon, but I've still got to pile on. Everything about Microsoft sucks. I am a native proud Mac user, but practicality has required me to have a fairly good working knowledge of the Windows world. I work with Microsoft as a recipient of donated software and OSs as part of our non-profit work. Each month when I need to report our usage I curse in my head. It's almost as though they take pride in having an interface that is clunky and unusable. For a company that's flush with capital they sure are stingy with any ease of use or follow through to their systems.  The Digital Literacy Curriculum reflects this attitude. It's almost as though Microsoft is full of idea-men with no one to come back to ensure quality control. hmmmm....

I've looked at it before at work, but I wanted to give it a more detailed fish eye if I was going to record my impressions. Here on my mac computer I cannot even log into their curriculum because I don't have Internet Explorer. Really, I mean, really? Can Microsoft not see the writing on the wall. Nevermind that I'm on a Mac. What about all those people out there who are using Firefox or Chrome? (Too bad I can't round out that list with Netscape... I like 3s.) Why is it that they are so dead set on protecting their product that they cannot break their walls of paranoia and protectionism to become more welcoming and user friendly?

24 hours later...I had to reinstall IE, or maybe I didn't. It had been set to "work offline" which took a while to find. They have two tools pulldown menus that do not have the same functionality. It would be cooler to pretend like I don't have "user error" issues.  Everyone has user error issues; those of us with healthy self-image can own it. Anyway, accessed the curriculum at long last.

I was disappointed. After all my sturm und drang getting it set up, it wasn't horrible, it was just typically boring. A metallic voice read some prose to me; the sound screeched through my veins like fingernails on chalkboard. There was a lot of tasteful blue and gray on white. It was just dull. And basic. Now, I do have to consider the fact that this is designed for neophytes, people who still need basic computer skills. Just because people are ignorant shouldn't mean that they should get bad training; that's perhaps one reason that they are ignorant in the first place.

This material is clearly not current, and likely I shouldn't even be wasting breath on it. The last update was October 2007 which is so last century in Internet terms. Except it's not. I get emails regularly from Microsoft touting this curriculum. They just sent me another disk encouraging me to use it with my clients. More of the same didactic lecture and demonstration that is already failing learners all over.

--Dolly

Suck Quotient-- 2

usability	1 the actual content was fine, getting to it was an exercise in perseverance and patience.
aesthetics	2 non offensive
innovation	1 no
accuracy	4 the content was correct, just dull
fun	0 none

**Note
I was going to look at version 2 to be all fair and balanced, but while it worked when I first accessed it, once I installed the add ons that Microsoft recommended, I ended up with a black screen, no content. You win Microsoft!

I Found the Meaning of Life by Playing Games

I believe the meaning of life is found in what John Seely Brown and Douglas Thomas refer to as “the gamer disposition.”  The gamer disposition consists of five key attributes:

• Bottom-line oriented
• Accepting of diversity
• Realization that life is ever-changing
• Eagerness to overcome obstacles
• Loves to complete tasks, embark on quests, and accept challenges

More than attitudes or beliefs, these attributes are character traits that players bring into game worlds and that those worlds reinforce.  People who possess a gamer disposition may be happier than those who do not, and quite simplistically, will have an easier time finding “meaning” in life – because I believe one must be “happy” to be able to find true meaning in life.

What makes us happy, and makes us function well?  Some researchers are discovering happiness correlates to gaming. Jane McGonigal defines four key aspects of happiness:

1. Having satisfying work to do.
2. The experience at being good at something
3. Time spent with people we like
4. The chance to be a part of something bigger
   

Guess what?  All of these aspects of happiness are prevalent in games (especially in multi-player games).  The best-designed games are setup to let you be good at things you're not good at in real life.  Games come with better instructions, a clear goal, and better feedback than in real life.  Games are designed to help us find our strengths and weaknesses.  They also have better community aspects because all the players have agreed to the rules.  Gaming is a shared experience that is not often reflected in the real world.

Ubiquitous Learning

People often seem overwhelmed with information (I know at times I am). An individual can easily access a ton of information in just a few seconds on almost any subject. The great thing about this plethora of data is the ability for the individual to tailor information to their specific needs, and in some ways design their own learning experiences.

As the rise of social networking continues and the design of media development software makes it easier and more affordable for novices to design their own learning, more and more people are beginning to participate in creating learning content to share with others.

I think this moves us more towards what I call "ubiquitous learning." Most corporations provide on average about 40 hours a year of formal training for their employees. There are over 2,000 hours in an average work year. I can guarantee you that most workers don't reserve their learning to just those 40 provided by the company. Most people constantly learn, and most learning occurs through peers.

Since most of what we learn is informal, one has to question the efficiency of providing 40 hours of formal learning over the year. Does it really work? Why is it when people hear, "You must take this training course" they usually cringe?

I predict that corporations will find ways to involve their employees in ubiquitous learning: offer them collaborative learning environments, quick and easy ways to participate in learning events in different forms, provide informal and formal forums for information sharing, construct communities of practice, etc., and allow workers to integrate learning into the day-to-day work they do.

I predict "measuring" learning will become less important as the knowledge-based society matures, and learning will evolve into becoming a natural part of the average worker's tasks.

Disruptive Innovation Will Be the Catalyst for Transforming Education

I have several friends who are teachers, and I constantly talk to them about how they integrate technology into their classrooms. One friend who teaches 2nd grade in an economically depressed area replies that she can't even begin to think about computers in her classroom: most of her kids are coming to class hungry, or traumatized by dysfunctional home environments. She is also challenged by the oppressive No Child Left Behind focus on achieving specific test scores. This leaves her little time to contemplate how technology can transform her classroom.

In my daughter's middle school, computers are still in a "computer lab" off the library. So students have an allotted time during the day to "go to computer lab". They even get to "choose" to work on a Mac or PC based on their personal preference. I find this wholly inane (especially since we live near Silicon Valley).

What we need to do is throw out textbooks completely and provide students with an internet-enabled computer IN the classroom (and note that I used to work for a textbook publishing company). Not only would this save the backs of our small children (who have to lug the outrageously over-priced and cumbersomely heavy books in backpacks that must be causing damage to the spine), it would also transform how people learn.

In this New York Times article a Boston school that uses the "disruptive innovation" of computers to transform their curriculum is profiled. It states that kids are handed a Mac laptop when they enter the classroom. For their math work, they access special software that allows them to play against the other students in class in a game setting. It has been highly engaging, fun, and "makes the students learn more."

Students and teachers also IM, blog, and complete assignments using GoogleDocs. At the end of class, the students hand back the laptops and head for home. No heavy books to lug around and no "dogs to eat homework."

I often hear from educators and administrators how computers should not be the focus in the classroom, that they are disruptive to a learning environment. On the contrary, computers in my opinion make more sense: they enable all of the curriculum to be accessible in a small package, they enable network-based learning, they are easily managed and controlled, and they widen the boundaries of what is possible in an educational setting. What teachers and administrators need to realize is that they are a replacement for the book, pencil, and paper -- not a "device" to populate a "lab" in the library. Kids already recognize this. Teachers and administrators need to get on board and understand that the catalyst for positive change in education is staring them right in the face.

The Value of Games in Learning

Recently a colleague asked me a few questions about the value of games for training. Here are distillations of the conversation:

Question: What do you think are the benefits of the gaming approach to learning?
Answer: Games designed to facilitate learning enable players to engage in tasks and experience situations that may be too difficult, too expensive, or to dangerous to attempt in "real life." For instance, using a game activity, we can build an immersive simulation around troubleshooting Sun storage appliances. In real life, we may not have easy access to those storage appliances. By simulating a data center environment, we can "place the learner in the contextual situation." To increase motivation, we can make the activity game-like by constructing play. With play, you can heighten the learner's emotion, which is key to increasing motivation. By adding a scoring or timing element, along with rules and goals, you increase the chance of the learner becoming intrinsically motivated in the learning environment (which means the learner is motivated by a deep interest in the activity, and cannot easily be distracted, as opposed to extrinsic motivation which means the learner is playing only because an external reward is offered).

Question: Can the gaming approach to learning enhance the skillsets of employees? If yes, how?
Answer: Games are very good at combining drama, story, and characters to create a compelling experience which increases retention. With appropriate design, a learning game can be the vehicle for transferring new knowledge and/or skills that can then be immediately applied in the workplace.

Question: How is the gaming approach to learning able to meet the specific and direct needs of our company and business nature?
Answer: In some respects, it all comes down to defined business outcomes. When you take a deep look at the types of learning interventions we are currently designing, ask yourself this: "Are the interventions tied succinctly to a business need, and are we effectively measuring the results?" Peel back another layer, and ask, "Are the types of training programs offering relevance, credibility, and causality to their intended target audiences?" Games may not work in every situation. You will need to consider the audience, the subject matter, the desired goals and objectives of the intervention, as well as the budget, schedule, and the competency of the design team. If you strip away the technology, games are essentially highly experiential learning applications which can foster deep levels of cognitive activity. For example, higher-thinking skills such as conflict resolution or negotiation. Games can be simulated environments with vivid and realistic representations of real-life in which players solve problems. Solving the problems is how the player derives satisfaction from the experience. Satisfied players = happy players which equals increased motivation and retention.

Question: With technology and the business landscape changing so quickly- why and how will gaming approach to learning become more pertinent than ever before?
Answer:  Technology doesn't really change learning. Learners change learning. Today's learners expect flexibility in how they consume their learning, so our designs need to be sensitive to the audience's needs. Sometimes a simple job aid is enough.

Question: What kinds of people do you think are suitable for the gaming approach to learning and could benefit most from it?
Answer: Play is an inherent human trait. I have not met anyone that doesn't like to play. Note that there are two types of play: structured and unstructured. We are concerned with structured play in the training world. Males and females do tend to approach games from different perspectives. Females are less likely to want to engage in combat in a game, whereas males may tend to become easily bored with less action-oriented games. In general, some people prefer puzzles, some struggle with puzzles. I think everyone likes certain types of game-like activities... it's just all about a good audience analysis to determine the best type of game to create.

Question: Have you got any advice for people who are still thinking whether they should join the gaming approach to learning or not?
Answer: In my opinion, people want to have fun and be happy in general. Why does it have to be not fun to take a training program? The designer's job is to balance the fun and learning, so that measurable objectives can be met.

Question: Have you got any tips for participants who are taking training courses with gaming approach?
Answer: I think those who want to design learning games, must understand the mechanics of play. Those who do not play games, probably would not be successful game designers. My first tip would be to find a way to translate a favorite game from childhood into a learning game. That's how I got started.

 In short, games:

• have realistic and relevant environments that allow users to explore boundaries and options.
• have clearly defined rules: “If you release your finger from the keyboard, you will fall”, “If you step on a landmine it will blow up”, or “if you run out of cash you will go broke”.
• have clear objectives – “obtain all four clues before your character leaves the room”, “double turnover in 3 years”.
• are truly interactive; every thing that the player does, or does not do, affects the environment.
• have clear outcomes; “You only retrieved three clues... you lost”, “You have run out of cash and are now broke”.
• provide meaningful and relevant feedback that show the consequences of decisions and actions.
  
• are adaptive; they automatically track the player’s progress and performance to maintain a careful balance between boredom (because it is too easy) and frustration (because it is too hard). Static content (eLearning) cannot be easily designed to achieve this and is, therefore, customised to a very specific audience.
• requires more cognition from the player than regular eLearning courses where the learner simply reads text and regurgitates facts. Gamers analyse huge quantities of information to problem solve, think creatively, explore and investigate, and deduce through trial and error, tasks that often occur in the workplace.