How does online learning compete with Grand Theft Auto?

Personally I have a somewhat different approach to this. I do need to be entertained, I just focus much more when I am. So I will choose entertaining learning over 'boring' stuff like reading or listening to someone explain something. I do love reading though, but stories. 

My baby sister who is 20 now, learned to speak excellent English because she used to play English games - a lot (English is not our native language). I used to put my phone language to French or German when I wanted to practice, and I have read my favorite book in Dutch, English, French and German for practice. That I love to do. 

Maybe a disappointment, but sometimes you just have to. For school or for work. Can't have a rainbow without the rain, so to speak. Disappointment isn't always bad.

I do think they might associate their ipad and smartphones with nice and flashy, and since they don't use it at school or work a lot, the methods used there will be associated with boring. Maybe that explains a bit of it?

Hi Marjolein.

They actually use iPads and phones a lot. In fact as we speak she has a friend over and they are revising A-Level Philosophy by looking at subject-appropriate online lectures and cartoons on their phones in the living room

So there's my point I guess.....

That is "learning" for them - anything that even looks similar to a slide is "boring", and they are turned off in 5 seconds flat.

They may just have to get used to it, but we need as IDs to at least appreciate that fact, and try to make things as "un-slidelike" as we can, and it's also our job to at least try and discuss the issue with clients.

I think we have to. Otherwise it will be a lot of top-down-you have to do this to be compliant-type of stuff I'm afraid. If the client doesn't want this, then the client will have to choose other methods. 

I myself try to make my courses as entertaining as possible because I believe that this is the best way to learn for most people. So I try to convince clients of my vision. But well, if they still want a Fiat instead of a Ferrari and I've told them that won't reach the speed they want and they still prefer the Fiat... I will build them one

Did anyone see the 'Death by Powerpoint' youtube movie by any chance? It's really funny:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbSPPFYxx3o

Hi Marjorlein, I guess my point is that if a person is not interested in the topic and not motivated to learn then gaming will probably not do it for them. Having said that I love great design and try to make everything I create as compelling and as possible. I will stay with something that is well designed and visually appealing much longer than I would a basic page turner but I have also been really put off by courses that use games and point-and-click interactivity because they think this will make the course more engaging. I recently had to complete a compliance course in which I had to click on various objects to read the text before I could move on to the next slide - so being the brat that I am, I clicked on each thing as fast as I could and made a point of not reading it.

I don't think gamification is the way forward, it is a buz word that people drop out but haven't thought out the reality of what they are trying to do.  

Most clients will only ever have one course for a topic, in that course we need to encompass all learning styles within that client base.  gamification will only appeal to part of that market if I force a client down that route and the majority of their staff are turned off by the course then I have failed.

That said there is a place in courses for achievements, progression and fun, you can utilise some game style elements, but I have no desire to build games.

Did you ever play many video games Phil? (As a youngster or otherwise.)

Nicholas

I still play games now, in my younger years I owned a Spectrum, Atari, Megadrive, Master system, SNES, moving onto N64, Gamecube, Xbox and PS3. I have played almost every version of Zelda and Halo.  I also enjoy games on my iPad.  

I just do not see the future of elearning being in about gamification. a true game is about is about play and disruption and creativity and ambiguity and surprise. the nub of it all is that a game is about the unexpected.

We then come back to elearning and gamification and that is is about the expected, the known, the badgeable, and the quantifiable inevitably we are just talking about achievements basically you are saying you are being tracked and we will give you credentials (achievements).

Gamification is a way of giving achievements and at that point it differentiates itself from games, it is not about learning but about allowing learners to collect badges along the way, we are not measuring if learning has taken place but instead giving badges.

Are the lectures in video form?

Are they easy to asorb for them?

Do they complain about how boring the lectures are?

Do the cartoons help them relax after the lectures/or during?

I'm having to learn all the time at this point. That means watching videos, reading books, pdfs, printed documents, looking at simulations, talking to others etc.

For me the learning come down the to level of energy required and investment needed to learn. I prefer minimal investment and whatever gives me the best method to get to that information and then assimilate it.

Yes I do prefer a better quality video which is well designed and mildly entertaining or a 40 year old book that's very well written. But I'll still take the material that's available.

I'm still not sure how comparing video games that cost tens of millions to what individual and small business owners can produce with learning/training is applicable.

I'll agree again with the apples and oranges comment earlier.

Gamification is a different topic.

I would again put forward that we can learn from good game design as with web design or other design forms.

I'll also agree with Nancy above.

Nicholas

@Nicholas - I am not trying to "compare" anything - that is not, and was never my original intent for this thread.

My original intent, (which appears to have become somewhat diluted, perhaps due to an incorrect thread title...) is how do we deal with the EXPECTATIONS people have when faced with learning experiences that do not match their experiences on similar devices.

I could have used "Websites", or "Films" as a comparative example.

I am not talking about whether games are good or bad, or whether you/others prefer one medium over another.

I am trying, unsuccessfully it seems...to explore the relationship between "...stuff that one consumes on a PC, Tablet or other mobile device", and the expectations and feelings that a person has about that content. I am a psychologist by degree, so it is the minds of learners that really interests me, and the emotional experiences that they get from what we produce.

The content we deliver will, in many cases, be delivered in a less snazzy look-and-feel to may other digital forms, so how do we prepare our (younger?) learners for that reality of life.

To me, it seems to boil down to whether the content, (no matter how delivered), is useful to them or not, which I guess goes back to the "WIFM" we need to ensure is in any courses we create.

Hi Nancy,

You are quite right about motivation I think; even with gaming some things might just not interest people enough. Also, it takes a lot of money and a lot of skill and creativity to build really nice looking games; that kind of budget I have unfortunately never encountered in my work (I wish). 

I do think it would help to keep people focused, but is it enough?

To reply to Bruce's last post, I am trying to understand what you mean exactly. I don't think I got it right the first time

I think (younger) people expect more than just reading on a tablet. They expect action, interaction and entertainment. As they create for themselves through playing games, Facebook, and watching short youtube movies.

But if they're not motivated, we are never going to be able to force them. Maybe their boss or the threat of getting bad grades will. But is that what we want?

@Marjolein - let me try and explain because I think I've probably confused things.

You are right in the word you use - "expect".

If someone (for example) is used to seeing Premier League soccer being played, then if they go to a local village game, it does not matter whether it is tactically sound, has great coaches and goals are scored, they may find the whole environment rather "dull" and not achieve any psychological state of real enjoyment. It's not that the match is bad in any way, it is just very different from what they are used to.

The same might be true for (online) learning. People are getting very used to fabulous effects and wonderfully advanced technology - far and above what Instructional Designers are ever able to produce in the vast % of cases. So it's not that our courses are bad, or poor, it is just that in comparison with many of the other experiences (games, videos, Websites etc.) now enjoyed daily by people on their devices, (PCs, Tablets, Phones etc.), the courses are somewhat short on "entertainment".

So do we make courses more "entertaining", or is learning something different - is it something where (younger...) learners have to have the purpose explained, and have to understand that (in most cases...) there is something else going on?

Perhaps, (if they are motivated), then the learning CAN work without all the "bells and whistles" but just utilising all the features and functionality that we have available to us in Storyline (for example). In which case, do we need to work with companies and so on to explain the communication and change management processes more?

I hope that explains more clearly, as we do seem to have travelled down a "gaming" rat-hole here. Apologies...I should have explained my thoughts more clearly earlier.

I think I know what you mean. The level of expectation is higher as opposed to what it used to be in the past. This is especially true for the 'younger' generation who play games, use their smartphone or tablet, and are generally used to things that are fast, on demand, and entertaining. Although I think that it's not exclusively true for this group. 

The question might be: do we have to take this into account? To answer this, I think we have to answer what the influence of these expectations are on learning material in general. Do they have the same expectations of that (action, interaction, entertainment) or other? And if other, which?

@Bruce,

I understand that your initial point has been deviated somewhat.

So apologies for going at a tangent.

I'm looking at game design (as part of overall design elements..) and I've found that this series:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ExtraCreditz

Extra Credits comes across as 'entertaining, fun enough' but also manages to give me enough information about serious game design practices. It doesn't need to be as good as GTA V or other mediums and could still fit into the e-learning box.

I think the difference that you really want to focus on (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is the corporate/company world.

So really you need to ask if the person in charge of finance at a company is willing to allow the L&D department or outsourced contractors the same freedom as Penny Arcade does with the Extra Credits video.

Penny Arcade is a web comic that is also a serious business. They run conventions, sell merchandise, have a children's charity etc. 

They purchased 'Extra Credits' as part of their business strategy.

So should you be focusing on the producers of the content that the younger generation will access or those who control the finances who are willing to fund such creative or digital content?

ROI again.

Hopefully that helps draw the focus back to your original reason for starting this thread.

Nicholas

I've been buidling induction courses for two departments at the company I work for. These are 10-20 minute courses and mostly information only type content. It has been a real challenge to design interactive training in such a short window. I'm not a gamer but I do love movies and I have incorporated things I've seen in movies into my courses. Bruce, I would love to create a course that has a story and uses scenarios but the induction courses I'm designing don't lend themselves to this style. There isn't the time and I'm not given time to create a game type interface. I do think courses for the general population that teach a skill are much more condusive to "gamification" or interactive and engaging design.

Great discussion!

Over time peoples understanding of the conventions of navigation on web pages, Apps etc has become more complex,  In cutting edge OS design (I am mainly talking iOS7 Windows 8.1, phone) we find that the navigation cues are being removed and navigation itself is becoming more complex rather than simpler.  This is because users now know what a back arrow does it no longer need pointing out to  them, so the designers are building more complex navigation without the need to hold the hands of the user.

We should be taking our cues from this sort of thing, do we really need to tell the user where the next button is? or even when to press it!

Our designs should be as intuitive as the websites, OS's and Apps that user navigate day in day out without any help.

On that level I definitely agree with you. We shouldn't overestimate, but definitely shouldn't underestimate our learners.

(Although I recently had someone actually call me because she didn't know what to do when she got the first page of an e-learning. "What do I do?" she asked. I was a bit confused until I found out that she actually didn't think of clicking the next button. I really hope she's an exception...)