Major Research Review on eLearning Effectiveness

, ,

Is elearning effective? As effective as classroom instruction — more or less effective? What about blended learning — when elearning and classroom learning are combined?

ELearning Research Report Cover 2017.


These critical questions have now been answered and are available in the research report, Does eLearning Work? What the Scientific Research Says!

In this research review, I looked at meta-analyses and individual research studies, and was able to derive clear conclusions. The report is available for free, it includes an executive summary, and research jargon is kept to a minimum.

Click here to download the report…

 

 

 

Note that the August 10, 2017 version of this report incorrectly cited the Rowland (2014) study in a footnote and omitted it from the list of research citations. These issues were fixed on August 11, 2017. Special thanks to Elizabeth Dalton who notified me of the issues.

Giving Learners More Control in eLearning: What Does the Research Say?

,

Does giving learners more control of the way they navigate through an elearning program help them or hurt them?

Before I tell you what the research says, challenge yourself with this one-item quiz question:

 

 


 

How did you do? I ask because I want to give you maximum control of this learning experience.

Or maybe, I just like telling a joke. SMILE.

A recent meta-analysis (a scientific study that looks at many other scientific studies) found NO benefit for learner control. And contrary to what we were told by Malcolm Knowles and all those who tried to sell us on the adult-learner-knows-best baloney, the meta-analysis showed slightly more of a tendency for learner control to be beneficial for kids, NOT adults (but still a virtually non-existent benefit).

Our job then as elearning designers is NOT to give up control to our learners, but to design a learning experience that uses proven research-based techniques to guide learners through an effective repertoire of learning experiences. Certainly, the research finding shouldn’t be construed to mean that we should never give learners control, but it does mean that as an over-riding design principle, it’s a bad idea.

Interestingly, the meta-analysis broke down elearning into its methodological parts, and found no benefit to learner control in any of the components.

“The current study, in keeping with the previous meta-analysis (Niemiec et al., 1996), found near zero effects for all components of instruction (pacing, time, sequence, practice, review). Thus, there does not seem to be an advantage to giving the learner control over any particular instructional component.” (p. 404)

Of course, with research as with most things in life, some circumspection should be in order. My first worry is that research on elearning tends to be done on very short learning programs where learner motivation doesn’t really come into play. Who can’t keep attentive for 15 minutes, maintaining their motivation? Some learner control might help in longer learning programs where it might support motivation to engage the learning. Also, we wouldn’t want to throw out the idea of learner control completely. There may be some specific opportunities where it is worthwhile.

 

The Research Reviewed

Karich, A. C., Burns, M. K., & Maki, K. E. (2014). Updated meta-analysis of learner control within educational technology. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 392-410.

 

Remember This!

If you’re developing learning or developing your learning team, don’t forget to seek out trusted research-to-practice experts to help you.

Definition of MicroLearning

, , ,

I’ve looked for a good definition of microlearning, but because I couldn’t find one, I’ve created my own.

Microlearning involves the use of:

“Relatively short engagements in learning-related activities—typically ranging from a few seconds up to 20 minutes (or up to an hour in some cases)—that may provide any combination of content presentation, review, practice, reflection, behavioral prompting, performance support, goal reminding, persuasive messaging, task assignments, social interaction, diagnosis, coaching, management interaction, or other learning-related methodologies.”

Microlearning has five utilization cases:

  1. Course Replacement
    Provides training content and learning support, often as a replacement for classroom training or long-form elearning.
  2. Course Augmentation
    Provides after-course or within-course streams of short learning interactions to reinforce, strengthen, or deepen learning.
  3. Retrieval Support
    Provides retrieval practice, spaced repetitions, and reminding to ensure knowledge and skills can be remembered when needed.
  4. Just-In-Time (Moment-of-Need) Learning
    Provides information when learners need it to perform a task they are working on.
  5. Behavioral Prompts
    Provides action nudges, task assignments, or performance support to directly prompt and support behavior.

If it’s not obvious, there are clearly overlaps in these five use cases, and furthermore, a single microlearning thread may utilize more than one of the methodologies suggested. For example, when using microlearning as a replacement for a standard elearning course, you might also consider retrieval support and behavioral prompts in your full learning design.

Providing Feedback on Quiz Questions — Yes or No?

,

I was asked today the following question from a learning professional in a large company:

It will come as no surprise that we create a great deal of mandatory/regulatory required eLearning here. All of these eLearning interventions have a final assessment that the learner must pass at 80% to be marked as completed; in addition to viewing all the course content as well. The question is around feedback for those assessment questions.

  • One faction says no feedback at all, just a score at the end and the opportunity to revisit any section of the course before retaking the assessment.
  • Another faction says to tell them correct or incorrect after they submit their answer for each question.
  • And a third faction argues that we should give them detailed feedback beyond just correct/incorrect for each question. 

Which approach do you recommend? 

 

 

Here is what I wrote in response:

It all depends on what you’re trying to accomplish…

If this is a high-stakes assessment you may want to protect the integrity of your questions. In such a case, you’d have a large pool of questions and you’d protect the answer choices by not divulging them. You may even have proctored assessments, for example, having the respondent turn on their web camera and submit their video image along with the test results. Also, you wouldn’t give feedback because you’d be concerned that students would share the questions and answers.

If this is largely a test to give feedback to the learners—and to support them in remembering and performance—you’d not only give them detailed feedback, but you’d retest them after a few days or more to reinforce their learning. You might even follow-up to see how well they’ve been able to apply what they’ve learned on the job.

We can imagine a continuum between these two points where you might seek a balance between a focus on learning and a focus on assessment.

This may be a question for the lawyers, not just for us as learning professionals. If these courses are being provided to meet certain legal requirements, it may be most important to consider what might happen in the legal domain. Personally, I think the law may be behind learning science. Based on talking with clients over many years, it seems that lawyers and regulators often recommend learning designs and assessments that do NOT make sense from a learning standpoint. For example, lawyers tell companies that teaching a compliance topic once a year will be sufficient — when we know that people forget and may need to be reminded.

In the learning-assessment domain, lawyers and regulators may say that it is acceptable to provide a quiz with no feedback. They are focused on having a defensible assessment. This may be the advice you should follow given current laws and regulations. However, this seems ultimately indefensible from a learning standpoint. Couldn’t a litigant argue that the organization did NOT do everything they could to support the employee in learning — if the organization didn’t provide feedback on quiz questions? This seems a pretty straightforward argument — and one that I would testify to in a court of law (if I was asked).

By the way, how do you know 80% is the right cutoff point? Most people use an arbitrary cutoff point, but then you don’t really know what it means.

Also, are your questions good questions? Do they ask people to make decisions set in realistic scenarios? Do they provide plausible answer choices (even for incorrect choices)? Are they focused on high-priority information?

Do the questions and the cutoff point truly differentiate between competence and lack of competence?

Are the questions asked after a substantial delay — so that you know you are measuring the learners’ ability to remember?

Bottom line: Decision-making around learning assessments is more complicated than it looks.

Note: I am available to help organizations sort this out… yet, as one may ascertain from my answer here, there are no clear recipes. It comes down to judgment and goals.

If your goal is learning, you probably should provide feedback and provide a delayed follow-up test. You should also use realistic scenario-based questions, not low-level knowledge questions.

If your goal is assessment, you probably should create a large pool of questions, proctor the testing, and withhold feedback.

 

Interview with Karl Kapp on Games, Gamification, and LEARNING!

, ,

Dr. Karl Kapp is one of the learning field’s best research-to-practice gurus! Legendary for his generosity and indefatigable energy, it is my pleasure to interview him for his wisdom on games, gamification, and their intersection.

His books on games and gamification are wonderful. You can click on the images below to view them on Amazon.com.

 

 

The following is a master class on games and learning:

 

Will (Question 1):

Karl, you’ve written a definitive exploration of Gamification in your book, The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. As I read your book I was struck by your insistence that Gamification “is not the superficial addition of points, rewards, and badges to learning experiences.” What the heck are you talking about? Everybody knows that gamification is all about leaderboards, or so the marketplace would make us believe… [WINK, WINK] What are you getting at in your repeated warning that gamification is more complex than we might think?

Karl:

If you examine why people play games, the reasons are many, but often players talk about the sense of mastery, the enjoyment of overcoming a challenge, the thrill of winning and the joy of exploring the environment. They talk about how they moved from one level to another or how they encountered a “boss level” and defeated the boss after several attempts or how they strategized a certain way to accomplish the goal of winning the game. Or they describe how they allocated resources so they could defeat a difficult opponent. Rarely, if ever, do people who play games talk about the thrill of earning a point or the joy of being number seven on the leaderboard or the excitement of earning a badge just for showing up.

The elements of points, badges and leaderboards (PBLs) are the least exciting and enticing elements of playing games. So there is no way we should lead with those items when gamifying instruction. Sure PBLs play a role in making a game more understandable or in determining how far away a player is from the “best” but they do little to internally motivate players by themselves. Reliance solely on the PBL elements of games to drive learner engagement is not sustainable and not even what makes games motivational or engaging. It’s the wrong approach to learning and motivation. It’s superficial; it’s not deep enough to have lasting meaning.

Instead, we need to look at the more intrinsically motivating and deeper elements of games such as: challenge, mystery, story, constructive feedback (meaningful consequences) strategy, socialization and other elements that make games inherently engaging. We miss a large opportunity when we limit our “game thinking” to points, badges and leaderboards. We need to expand our thinking to include elements that truly engage a player and draw them into a game. These are the things that make games fun and frustrating and worth our investment in time.

 

Will (Question 2):

You wrote that “too many elements of reality and the game ceases to be engaging,”—and I’m probably taking this out of context—but I wonder if that is true in all cases? For example, I can imagine a realistic flight simulator for fighter pilots that creates an almost perfect replica of the cockpit, g-forces, and more, that would be highly engaging… On the other hand, my 13-year-daughter got me hooked on Tanki, an online tank shot-em-up game, and there are very few elements of reality in the game—and I, unfortunately, find it very engaging. Is it different for novices and experts? Are the recommendations for perceptual fidelity different for different topic areas, different learning goals, et cetera?

Karl:

A while ago, I read a fake advertisement for a military game. It was a parody. The fake game description described how the “ultra-realistic” military game would be hours of fun because it was just like actually being in the military. The description told the player that he or she would have hours of fun walking to the mess hall, maintaining equipment, getting gasoline for the jeep, washing boots, patrolling and zigging and cleaning latrines. Now none of these things are really fun, in fact, they are boring but they are part of the life of being in the military. Military games don’t include these mundane activities. Instead, you are always battling an enemy or strategizing what to do next. The actions that a military force performs 95% of the time are not included in the game because they are too boring.

 If games where 100% realistic, they would not be fun. So, instead, games are an abstraction of reality because they focus on things within reality that can be made engaging or interesting. If a game reflected reality 100%, there would be boring game play. Now certainly, games can be designed to “improve” reality and make it more fun. In the game, The Sims, you wake up, get dressed and go to work which all seems pretty mundane. However, these realistic activities in The Sims are an abstraction of the tasks you actually perform. The layer of abstraction makes the game more exciting, engaging and fun. But in either the military game case or The Sims, too much reality is not fun.

The flight simulator needs to be 100% realistic because it’s not really a game (although people do play it as a game) but the real purpose of a simulation is training and perfection of skills. A flight simulator can be fun for some people to “play” but in a 100% realistic simulator, if you don’t know what you are doing, it’s boring because you keep crashing. For someone who doesn’t know how to fly, like me. If you made a World War II air battle game which had 100% realistic controls for my airplane, it wouldn’t be fun. In game design, we need to balance elements of reality with the learning goal and the element of engagement.

For some people, a simulator can be highly engaging because the learner is performing the task she would do on the job. So there needs to be a balance in games and simulations to have the right amount of reality for the goals you are trying to achieve.

 

Will (Question 3):

In developing a learning game, what should come first, the game or the goals (of learning)?

Karl:

Learning goals must come first and must remain at the forefront of the game design process. Too often I see the mistake of a design team becoming too focused on games elements and losing site of the learning goals. In our field, we are paid to help people learn, not to entertain them. Learning first.

Having said that, you can’t ignore or treat the game elements as second class citizens, you can’t bolt-on a points system and think you have now developed a fun game—you haven’t. The best process involves simultaneously integrating game mechanics and learning elements. It’s tricky and not a lot of instructional designers have experience or training in this area but it’s critical to have integration of game and learning elements, the two need to be designed together. Neither can be an afterthought.

 

Will (Question 4):

Later we’ll talk about the research you’ve uncovered about the effectiveness of games. As I peruse the literature on games, the focus is mostly on the potential benefits of games. But what about drawbacks? I, for one, “waste” a ton of time playing games. Opportunity costs are certainly one issue, but maybe there are other drawbacks as well, including addiction to the endorphins and adrenaline; a heightened state of engagement during gaming that may make other aspects of living – or learning – seem less interesting, engaging. What about learning bad ideas, being desensitized to violence, sexual predation, or other anti-social behaviors? Are there downsides to games? And, in your opinion, has the research to date done enough to examine negative consequences of games?

Karl:

Yes, games can have horrible, anti-social content. They can also have wonderful, pro-social content. In fact, a growing area of game research focuses on possible pro-social aspects of games. The answer really is the content. A “game” per-say is neither pro- or anti-social like any other instructional medium. Look at speeches. Stalin gave speeches filled with horrible content and Martin Luther King, Jr. gave speeches filled with inspiring content. Yet we never seem to ask the question “Are speeches inherently good or bad?”

Games, like other instructional media, have caveats that good instructional designers need to factor when deciding if a game is the right instructional intervention. Certainly time is a big factor. It takes time to both develop a game and to play a game. So this is a huge downside. You need to weigh the impact you think the game will have on learner retention or knowledge versus another instructional intervention. Although, I can tell you there are at least two meta-analysis studies that indicate that games are more effective for learning than traditional, lecture-based instruction. But the point is not to blindly choose game over lecture or discussion. The decision regarding the right instructional design needs to be thoughtful. Knowing the caveats should factor into the final design decision.

Another caveat is that games should not be “stand-alone.” It’s far better for a learning game to be included as part of a larger curriculum rather than developed without any sense of how it fits into the larger pictures. Designers need to make sure they don’t lose site of the learning objective. If you are considering deploying a game within your organization, you have to make sure it’s appropriate for your culture. Another big factor to consider is how the losers are handled in the game. If a person is not successful at a game, what are the repercussions? What if she gets mad and shuts down? What if he walks away halfway through the experience because he is so frustrated? These types of contingencies need to be considered when developing a game. So, yes, there are downsides to games as there are downsides to other types of instruction. Our job, as instructional designers, is to understand as many downsides and upsides as possible for many different design possibilities and make an informed, evidence-based decision.

 

Will (Question 5):

As you found in your research review, feedback is a critical element in gaming. I’ve anointed “feedback” as one of the most important learning factors in my Decisive Dozen – as feedback is critical in all learning. The feedback research doesn’t seem definitive in recommending immediate versus delayed feedback, but the wisdom I take from the research suggests that delayed feedback is beneficial in supporting long-term remembering, whereas immediate feedback is beneficial in helping people “get” or comprehend key learning points or contingencies. In some sense, learners have to build correct mental models before they can (or should) reinforce those understandings through repetitions, reinforcement, and retrieval practice.

Am I right that most games provide immediate feedback? If not, when is immediate feedback common in games, when is delayed feedback common? What missed opportunities are there in feedback design?

Karl:

You are right; most games provide immediate, corrective feedback. You know right-away if you are performing the right action and, if not, the consequences of performing the wrong action. A number of games also provide delayed feedback in the form of after-action reviews. These are often seen in games using branching. At the end of the game, the player is given a description of choices she made versus the correct choices. So, delayed feedback is common in some types of games. In terms of what is missing in terms of feedback, I think that most learning games do a poor job of layering feedback. In well-designed video games, at the first level of help, a player can receive a vague clue. If this doesn’t work or too much time passes, the game provides a more explicit clue and finally, if that doesn’t work, the player receives step-by-step instructions. Most learning games are too blunt. They tend to give the player the answer right away rather than layers choices or escalating the help. I think that is a huge missed opportunity.

 

Will (Question 6):

By the way, your book does a really nice job in describing the complexity and subtlety of feedback, including Robin Hunicke’s formulation for what makes feedback “juicy.” What subtleties around feedback do most of us instructional designers or instructors tend to miss?

Karl:

Our feedback in learning games and even elearning modules is just too blunt. We need more subtlety. Hunicke describes the need for feedback to have many different attributes including the need for the feedback to be tactile and coherent. She refers to tactile feedback as creating an experience where the player can feel the feedback as it is occurring on screen so that it’s not forced or unnatural within the game play. Instructional designers typically don’t create feedback the player or learner feels, typically, they create feedback that is “in your face” such as “Nice job!” or “Sorry, try again.” She describes coherent feedback as feedback that stays within the context of the game. It is congruent with on screen actions and activities as well as with the storyline unfolding as the interactions occur. Our learning games seem to fail at including both of these elements in our feedback. In general, our field needs to focus on feedback that is more naturally occurring and within the flow of the learning.

 

Will (Question 7):

Do learners have to enjoy the game to learn from it? What are the benefits of game pleasure? Are there drawbacks at all?

Karl:

Actually, research by Tracy Sitzmann indicates (2011) that a learner doesn’t have to indicate that he or she was “entertained” to learn from a serious game. So fun should not be the standard by which we measure the success of game. Instead, she found that what makes a game effective for learning is the level of engagement. Engagement should be the goal when designing a learning game. However, there are a number of studies that indicate that games are motivational. Although, one meta-analysis on games indicated that motivation was not a factor. So, I am not sure if pleasure is a necessary factor for learning. Instead, I tend to focus more on building engagement and having learners make meaningful decisions and less on learner enjoyment and fun. This tends to run counter to why most people want a learning game but the reason we should want learning games is to encourage engagement and higher order thinking and not to simply make boring learning fun. Engagement, mastery and tough decision making might not always be fun but, as you indicated in your questions about simulations, it can be engaging and learning results from engagement and then understanding the consequences of actions taken during that engagement.

 

Will (Question 8):

As I was perusing research on games, one of my surprises was that games seemed to be used for health-behavior change at least as much as learning. What they heck’s going on?

Karl:

Games are great tools for promoting health. We all know that we should focus on health and wellness but we often let other life elements get in the way. Making staying healthy a game provides, in many cases that little bit of extra motivation to make you stay on course. I think games for health work so well because they capitalize on our already existing knowledge that we need to stay healthy and then provide tracking of progress, earning of points and other incentives to help us give that extra boost that makes us take the extra 100 steps needed to get our 10,000 for the day. Ironically, I find games used in many life and death situations.

 

Will (Question 9):

In your book you have a whole chapter devoted to research on games. I really like your review. Of course, with all the recent research, maybe we’ve learned even more. Indeed, I just did a search of PsycINFO (a database of scientific research in the social sciences). When I searched for “games” in the title, I found 110 articles in peer-reviewed journals in this year (2016) alone. That’s a ton of research on games!!

Let’s start with the finding in your book that the research methodology of much of the research is not very rigorous. You found that concern from more than one reviewer. Is that still true today (in 2016)? If the research base is not yet solid, what does that mean for us as practitioners? Should we trust the research results or should we be highly skeptical — OR, where in-between these extremes should we be?

Karl:

The short answer, as with any body of research, is to be skeptical but not paralyzed. Waiting for the definitive decision on games is a continually evolving process. Research results are rarely a definitive answer; they only give us guidance. I am sure you remember when “research” indicated that eggs were horrible for you and then “research” revealed that eggs were the ultimate health food. We need to know that research evolves and is not static. And, we need to keep in mind that some research indicated that smoking had health benefits so I am always somewhat skeptical. Having said that, I don’t let skepticism stop me from doing something. If the research seems to be pointing in a direction but I don’t have all the answers, I’ll still “try it out” to see for myself.

That said the research on games, even research done today, could be much more rigorous. There are many flaws which include small sample sizes, no universal definition of games and too much focus on comparing the outcomes of games with the outcomes of traditional instruction. One would think that argument would be pretty much over but decade after decade we continue to compare “traditional instruction” with radio, television, games and now mobile devices. After decades of research the findings are almost always the same. Good design, regardless of the delivery medium, is the most crucial aspect for learning. Where the research really needs to go, and it’s starting to go in that direction, is toward comparing elements of games to see which elements lead to the most effective and deep learning outcomes. So, for example, is the use of a narrative more effective in a learning game than the use of a leaderboard or is the use of characters more critical for learning than the use of a strategy-based design? I think the blanket comparisons are bad and, in many cases, misleading. For example, Tic-Tac-Toe is a game but so is Assassin’s Creed IV. So to say that all games teach pattern recognition because Tic-Tac-Toe teaches pattern recognition is not good. As Clark Aldrich stated years ago, the research community needs some sort of taxonomy to help identify different genres of games and then research into the learning impact of those genres.

So, I am always skeptical of game research and try to carefully describe limitations of the research I conduct and to carefully review research that has been conducted by others. I tend to like meta-analysis studies which are one method of looking at the body of research in the field and then drawing conclusions but even those aren’t perfect as you have arguments about what studies were included and what studies were not included.

At this point I think we have some general guidelines about the use of games in learning. We know that games are most effective in a curriculum when they are introduced and described to the learners, then the learners play the game and then there is a debrief. I would like to focus more on what we know from the research on games and how to implement games effectively rather than the continuous, and in my opinion, pointless comparison of games to traditional instruction. Let’s just focus on what works when games do provide positive learning outcomes.

 

Will (Question 10):

A recent review of serious games (Tsekleves, Cosmas, & Aggoun, 2014, 2016) concluded that their benefits were still not fully supported. “Despite the increased use of computer games and serious games in education, there are still very few empirical studies with conclusive results on the effectiveness of serious games in education.” This seems a bit strong given other findings from recent meta-analyses, for example the moderate effect sizes found in a meta-analysis from Wouters, van Nimwegen, van Oostendorp, & van der Spek (2013).

Can you give us a sense of the research? Are serious games generally better, sometimes better, or rarely better than conventional instruction? Or, are they better in some circumstance, for some learners, for some topics – rather than others? How should us practitioners think about the research findings?

Karl:

Wouters et al. (2013) found that games are more effective than traditional instruction as did Stizmann (2011). But, as you indicated, other meta-analysis studies have not come to that conclusion. So, again, I think the real issue is that the term “games” is way too broad for easy comparisons and we need to focus more on the elements of games and how the individual elements intermingle and combine to cause learning to occur. One major problem with research in the field of games is that to conduct effective and definitive research we often want to isolate one variable and then keep all other variables that same. That processes is extremely difficult to do with games. New research methods might need to be invented to effectively discover how game variables interact with one another. I even saw an article that declared that all games are situational learning and should be studied in that context rather than in an experimental context. I don’t know the answer but there are few simple solutions to game-based research and definitive declarations of the effectiveness of games.

However, having said all that, here are some things we do know from the research related to using games for learning:

  • Games should be embedded in instructional programs. The best learning outcomes from using a game in the classroom occur when a three-step embedding process is followed. The teacher should first introduce the game and explain its learning objectives to the students. Then the students play the game. Finally, after the game is played, the teacher and students should debrief one another on what was learned and how the events of the game support the instructional objectives. This process helps ensure that learning occurs from playing the game (Hays, 2005; Sitzmann, 2011).
  • Ensure game objectives align with curriculum objectives. Ke (2009) found that the learning outcomes achieved through computer games depend largely on how educators align learning (i.e., learning subject areas and learning purposes), learner characteristics, and game-based pedagogy with the design of an instructional game. In other words, if the game objectives match the curriculum objectives, disjunctions are avoided between the game design and curricular goals (Schifter, 2013). The more closely aligned curriculum goals and game goals, the more likely the learning outcomes of the game will match the desired learning outcomes of the student.
  • Games need to include instructional support. In games without instructional support such as elaborative feedback, pedagogical agents, and multimodal information presentations (Hays, 2005; Ke, 2009; Wouters et al., 2013)., students tend to learn how to play the game rather than learn domain-specific knowledge embedded in the game. Instructional support that helps learners understand how to use the game increases the effectiveness of the game by enabling learners to focus on its content rather than its operational rules.
  • Games do not need to be perceived as being “entertaining” to be educationally effective. Although we may hope that Maria finds the game entertaining, research indicates that a student does not need to perceive a game as entertaining to still receive learning benefits. In a meta-analysis of 65 game studies, Sitzmann (2011) found that although “most simulation game models and review articles propose that the entertainment value of the instruction is a key feature that influences instructional effectiveness, entertainment is not a prerequisite for learning,” that entertainment value did not impact learning (see also Garris et al., 2002; Tennyson & Jorczak, 2008; Wilson et al., 2009). Furthermore, what is entertaining to one student may not be entertaining to another. The fundamental criterion in selecting or creating a game should be the learner’s actively engagement with the content rather than simply being entertained (Dondling, 2007; Sitzmann, 2011).

 

Will (Question 11):

If the research results are still tentative, or are only strong in certain areas, how should we as learning designers think about serious games? Is there overall advice you would recommend?

Karl:

First of all, I’d like to point to the research that exists indicating that lectures are not as effective for learning as some believe. So practitioners, faculty members and others have defaulted to lectures and held them up as the “holy grail” of learning experiences when the literature clearly doesn’t back up the use of lectures as the best method for teaching higher level thinking skills. If one wants to be skeptical of learning designs, start with the lecture.

Second, I think the guidelines outlined above are a good start. We are literally learning more all the time so keep checking to see the latest. I try to publish research on my blog (karlkapp.com) and at the ATD Science of Learning blog and, of course, the Will at Work blog for all things learning research are good places to look.

Third, we need to take more chances. Don’t be paralyzed waiting for research to tell you what to do. Try something, if you fail, try something else. Sure you can spend your career creating safe PowerPoint-based slide shows where you hit next to continue but that doesn’t really move your career or the field forward. Take what is known from reading books and from vetted and trusted internet sources and make professionally informed decisions.

 

Will (Question 12):

Finally, if we decide to go ahead and develop or purchase a serious game, what are the five most important things people should know?

Karl:

  1. First clearly define your goals. Why are you designing or purchasing a serious game and what do you expect as the outcome? After the learners play the game what should they be able to do? How should they think? What result do you desire? Without a clearly defined outcome, you will run into problems.
  2. Determine how the game fits into your overall learning curriculum. Games should not be stand-alone; they really should be an integral part of a larger instructional plan. Determine where the serious game fits into the bigger picture.
  3. Consider your corporate culture. So cultures will allow a fanciful game with zombies or strange characters and some will not. Know what your culture will tolerate in terms of game look and feel and then work within those parameters.
  4. If the game is electronic, get your information technology (IT) folks involved early. You’ll need to look at things like download speed, access, browser compatibility and a host of other technical issues that you need to consider.
  5. Think carefully and deeply before you decide to develop a game internally. Developing good, effective serious games is tough. It’s not a two-week project. Partner with a vendor to obtain the desired result.
  6. (A bonus) Don’t neglect the power of card games or board games for teaching. If you have the opportunity to bring learners together, consider low-tech game solutions. Sometimes those are the most impactful.

 

Will (Question 13):

One of your key pieces of advice is for folks to play games to learn about their power and potential. What kind of games should we choose to play? How should we prioritize our game playing? What kind of games should we avoid because they’ll just be a waste of time or might give us bad ideas about games for learning?

Karl:

I think you should play all types of games. First, pick different types of games from a delivery perspective so pick some card games, board games, causal games on your smartphone and video games on a game console. Mix it up. Then play different types of games such as role-play games, cooperative games, matching games, racing games, games where you collect items (like Pokémon Go). The trick is to not just play games that you like but to play a variety of games. You want to build a “vocabulary” of game knowledge. Once you’ve built a vocabulary, you will have a formidable knowledge base on which to draw when you want to create a new learning game.

Also, you can’t just play the games. You need to play and critically evaluate the games. Pay attention to what is engaging about the game, what is confusing, how the rules are crafted, what game mechanics are being employed, etc.? Play games with a critical eye. Of course, you will run the danger of ruining the fun of games because you will dissect any game you are playing to determine what about the game is good and what is bad but, that’s ok, you need that skill to help you design games. You want to think like a game designer because when you create a serious game, you are a game designer. Therefore, the greater the variety of game you the play and dissect, the better game designer you will become.

 

Will (Question 14):

If folks are interested, where can they get your book?

Karl:

Amazon.com is a great place to purchase my book or at the ATD web site. Also, if people have access to Lynda.com, I have several courses on Lynda including “The Gamification of Learning”. And I have a new book coming out in January co-authored by my friend Sharon Boller called “Play to Learn” where we walk readers through the entire serious game design process from conceptualization to implementation. We are really excited about that book because we think it will be very helpful for people who want to create learning games.

 

You can click on the images below to view Karl’s Gamification books on Amazon.com.

 

 

 

 

Research

Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489–528.

Tsekleves, E., Cosmas, J., & Aggoun, A. (2016). Benefits, barriers and guideline recommendations for the implementation of serious games in education for stakeholders and policymakers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 164-183. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.12223/pdf

Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031311

Personalized Learning with Video… by Consensus.

, ,

Research shows that one-on-one tutoring is generally highly effective — with a good tutor, of course. Similarly, John Anderson — the cognitive psychologist — along with others — developed Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) that tailor content to learners based on cognitive models of what they know and don't know.

These learning approaches are beneficial because they personalize learning based on a diagnosis of learner knowledge. This is not a new concept. Indeed, the Socratic Method also took learners on a journey based on their responses. B. F. Skinner's operant conditioning provided reinforcement based on learner actions. Skinner's Programmed Learning and Fred Keller's Personalized System of Instruction are practical applications based on operant conditioning principles.

We've known for millennium that personalized learning is good — and we've even dabbled in scalable implementations like programmed learning — but for the most part we are still awaiting the promise of such personalization.

Now may be the time. New technologies are beginning to show promise. For example, subscription-learning threads based on personalized spacing schedules personalize learning nuggets based on learner responses. Still, one area where personalization hasn't been much in evidence is video. That may be changing.

Consensus Demo

Consensus allows its users to create videos tailored to each learner. Their focus is on sales and marketing — and particularly on creating demos — but the technology could be used for other needs as well. Consensus tailors content to users based on their interests, background, etc. When folks choose a topic as “Very Important,” users get the full video segment and get it first. When folks choose a topic as “Somewhat Important,” users get a summary video. When they choose “Not Important,” users don’t get any segments associated with those topics.

Consensus can also segment users based on their role in an organization, based on the size of their company, or based on other demographics as well.

They’ve got a great video that you can tailor to your needs. Worth watching! Click to check out Consensus.

 

Integrating the Serious eLearning Manifesto Into Our Work

People have been cheering on the Serious eLearning Manifesto for over a year now…

Those of us who instigated the effort have been delighted with stories about how people are integrating the Manifesto and its 22 principles into their work.

Here's an example from Mark T. Burke, Founder and Lead Innovative Educational Program Designer for ThinkID8 and elearning consultancy. Mark believes so strongly in the eLearning Manifesto that he's created a series of posters in his office.

Mark Burke Manifesto Office Picture

Asked why he did such a thing, he said, "I was looking for something I could use as a personal framework.  So, as you can see, I adapted the opening statements to 'I….' statements.  Of course, I did this to demonstrate to others MY commitment to the collective vision of the Manifesto."

Kudos to Mark!

Postscript

I met Mark as he led a workshop with Dr. Karl Kapp at Bloomsburg University for instructional designers. The workshop is fascinating in that it's designed to help instructional designers learn how to take more entrepreneurial approaches to their work and careers.

eLearning Manifesto’s 22 Principles

People keep asking me for a list of the 22 principles from the Serious eLearning Manifesto.

Here they are: 

The 22 Principles

————————————–

The Serious eLearning Manifesto is an attempt to help members of the elearning industry bend the curve toward more effective and fulfilling elearning.

eLearning Paradigms 2014

,

I created a list of eLearning Paradigms to talk about subscription learning, but I think the list could stand on its own–and I'd like comments to see what I've missed.

Our Thinking on eLearning is Still Evolving 500px

Elearning is still a relatively young field, having its start in the 1960's during the advent of the computer age and gradually gaining a critical mass after the internet became a mass phenomenon. Because it's a young field, we are still learning how to think about elearning. With each new paradigm, we think more deeply, more fully about what elearning is–and can be. Below is my categorization of the most important elearning paradigms as of 2014.

eLearning Paradigms 2014

  • Content Presenter (enables content to be presented to learners)
  • Comprehension Tester (enables learners' knowledge to be tested–and feedback provided)
  • Practice Provider (enables learners' decision-making to be tested–and feedback provided)
  • Performance Supporter (enables performers to be prompted toward action)
  • Reminder (enables learners or performers to be reminded to learn and/or take action)
  • Social Augmentation Provider (enables learners to learn from and with each other)
  • Gamification Provider (provides motivational incentives and behavioral prompts to action)
  • Mobile Learning Provider (provides learning and/or performance support through mobile technology)
  • Data Utilizer (enables data collection and data-based interventions)
  • Video Provider (enables video to be utilized in various ways)
  • Learning Organizer (provides organizational structure around learning opportunities)
  • Personalizer (enables content or prompting to be individualized or tailored)
  • Learning-Delivery Augmenter (enables easy delivery of content or prompting) 
  • Context-Based Triggerer (enables content or prompting to be delivered depending on context)
  • Cost Saver (enables learning to be delivered at a lower cost)

I'm sure that I'm missing some elearning paradigms. You might have noticed that I'm only listing elearning memes that have a positive connotation. I am not mentioning such things as boring, trivial, poorly-designed. Also, some of the list may not be true, or may not always be true. For example, I've recently read research that shows that elearning is not often a cost saver. The bottom line, however, is that the list above represents a good number of the ways in which we tend to think about elearning.

Here's the thing: The paradigms listed above represent the dominant mental models we use when we think about elearning. As Thomas Kuhn wrote many years ago, paradigms are a double-edge sword. On the one hand, they help us think. On the other hand, they put boundaries on what we think. For us in the learning field, we get both benefits and costs from our elearning paradigms. They help us consider ways that we might design or utilize elearning. On the darker side, they constrict our thinking. One of the reasons we created the eLearningManifesto was to get the field to think beyond some of its weaker paradigms.

What are your thoughts on the dominant elearning paradigms?

If you want to learn more about subscription learning–offered as an additional paradigm for elearning, you can do that at SubscriptionLearning.com.

Learning Solutions 2014 — Come Join Me!

, ,

If you're going to the eLearning Guild's Learning Solutions Conference this coming week in Orlando, come join me–and say hello!

I'll be speaking in three sessions:

Featured Session (F2)
Subscription Learning: A Fundamentally Different Form of eLearning

Time: Wednesday March 19, 10:45AM

Details on the session

Slides for the session

Over 300 people are expected to attend. Get there early for a good seat!

Concurrent Session (105)
Serious eLearning Manifesto (Also with Clark Quinn and Michael Allen)

Time: Wednesday March 19, 1:00PM

Details on the session

We will hand out paper version of the Manifesto at the session (there are no slides)

Morning Buzz (MB31)

Time: Thursday March 20, 7:15AM

A casual conversation about the eLearning Manifesto and Instructional Design

Note: Look for Clark Quinn, or Michael Allen's name (as mine is not listed), but I'll be there!