A True Confession

The other day I was sitting in a meeting listening to a presentation. Here are the things I confess to having done during that time (I had my laptop open under the auspices of note-taking):

• “Googled” something the meeting leader said to better understand it
• Emailed my son some help with an algebra problem
• Read the headlines of the New York Times, Huffington Post and Wall Street Journal
• Bought a swimsuit (it probably won’t fit)
• Added a client event to my calendar and invited others to attend
• Rescheduled that event when the client declined
• Took notes on the presentation

I got to thinking…so what does this have to do with classroom simulations? Turns out — everything. Every day it seems our capacity and urge to multi-task grows. To keep pace with the dynamic business environment we operate in, we need to deal with many things at once, problem-solve and complete tasks simultaneously. Simulations are uniquely able to replicate and leverage this phenomenon in a training environment. It can move a classroom training experience from teaching x + y = z to ensuring an understanding of a(xy)+ b2 = z.

How do Simulations Work?

When I think about how simulations work to accomplish this higher order outcome, I come up with three main mechanisms. Effective simulations I’ve created or experienced feature:

1. Non-sequential learning
2. Realistic, complex situations
3. Demonstration of cause and effect

Simulations don’t have a linear, topic-followed-by-topic agenda that transfers knowledge via a “sage on the stage.” A simulation might offer a scenario, deliver some learning content on a few topics, provide access to resources (live, written, online or otherwise), then require participants to play roles, work together and use the information combined with their experience to solve a problem. Data may be missing and clues may be provided that don’t get used until later. Decisions may be required that change the course of the learning. Teams might outperform other teams. People might get frustrated and things might go wrong. Kind of like the real world.

When I’m creating a simulation, I like to sift through a lot of stories. The team and I listen to the client tell us what business problems happen when people don’t have the insights the simulation is supposed to deliver. We dig around for drama, intrigue, heartache, achievement and fiscal pain, and then we build them into the simulation. The learning experience has to feel real, or participants won’t care as much.

Simulations are a great way to leverage the experience of some participants to enhance the learning of others. When teams debate decisions and consider multiple courses of action they practice cause and effect thinking that is critical to successful business outcomes. By trusting in the ability (and desire) of humans to process more than one thing at a time, we have found that we can cover more content in a shorter amount of time than with a linear training approach. Senior level employees tend to engage and respond more positively to simulations than to traditional training experiences. One thing is certain; participants usually don’t have the time or desire to buy a bathing suit during a simulation.

Share this:

What should be a training designer’s goal? The answer would seem obvious: design a training solution.  While that may be the product the designer produces, it should not be the goal.

Recently I’ve been reading Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses by Jesse Schell. While at Blueline we often find a serious game or game-like element is an effective part of a training solution, I’ve found that the lenses that Schell offers extend beyond games to training solutions in general.

In chapter two Schell states, “Ultimately, a game designer does not care about games. Games are merely a means to an end. On their own, games are just artifacts — clumps of cardboard, or bags of bits. Games are worthless unless people play them. Why is this? What magic happens when games are played?

When people play games, they have an experience. It is this experience that the designer cares about. Without the experience, the game is worthless.”

I think we could easily substitute “training” for “game” in his statement and it would fit nicely. Yes, I’m fully aware of Bloom’s taxonomy and it’s importance in writing clear and specific objectives for a training solution. And I strongly support the theory that the ultimate outcome of any training should be a positive impact on business results. However, from a designer’s perspective, the goal should be to design an experience that leads to those results.

That’s why we say that at Blueline we focus on immersive learning experiences, whether they be simulations (classroom or esim ), virtual classrooms, learning visuals , or even large group communications events. To paraphrase Schell’s question, “What magic happens when Blueline training occurs?” – it is the rich immersive experience that produces the results.

Keeping the learner’s experience in mind throughout the design and development process leads to a set of questions beyond just “was the content clearly communicated?” and “was ample practice provided for skill development?” Thinking about designing an experience that leads to powerful learning means continually asking questions like:

• What frame of reference is the learner likely to have at this point?
• How receptive to learning will the learner be? How can we increase that receptivity?
• How have the previous elements or activities likely affected the energy and focus of the learner? How will this element or activity impact that focus or energy level?
• How can we engage the learner’s interest, curiosity, and/or emotions with this material?
• How might we have the learner “disagree” to incite more passion about the topic?
• What methods can we use so the learner must actively engage with the material rather than merely serve as a passive recipient of information?
• Would a “failure” or a “success” at this point be more likely to engage the learner? Increase the stickiness of the learning?
• What situation can we setup so the learner actively creates his or her own learning? Or generates his or her own data?

When we design with the learner’s experience in mind, we keep the learner and not the content front and center. Developing a training that puts the learner at the center more often than not results in greater learning comprehension and stickiness.

Share this:

Need to make an ROI assessment on whether a classroom program or eLearning solution is right for you? Now there is an app for that.

Brainvisa recently released a free iPhone app that helps you calculate the development, implementation and maintenance costs of a classroom program, and compares those costs to developing an eLearning solution. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) Tool for Learning Investments asks you a series of questions about the program to be develop, such as: “What’s the approximate length of this course?” — “How often it will need to be updated?” and, “How many times it will be offered?”

Next, the app steps you through similar considerations for implementation such as, cost of space, cost of facilitation, hourly rate of attendees, etc. Using all this information, it then calculates your total cost. Next, it asks if you would like to compare that cost to the cost of developing an eLearning solution.

CAB doesn’t ask any of the same questions about the eLearning development or implementation, so Brainvisa must be using their development costs for those calculations.

I did three test runs of CAB to check it out. The results of two of the test runs indicated that eLearning was a more cost effective approach. The third test run, with less than 50 people to be trained, said a classroom solution was a more cost effective approach.

Now there is nothing here that you couldn’t do with a simple spreadsheet – or even a pencil and piece of paper! But CAB is simple, the voice over that asks the questions is done with a sense of humor and the math is done for you. More importantly, it is an early demonstration that not only is mobile learning going to be a big trend in 2010, but I think we will also see more mobile tools to support the development, implementation and maintenance of learning solutions.

It looks to be a very interesting year!

Share this: