Bottom-Line Performance

Well, that was fun.

The last of the celebrities and East Coast football fans have left Indianapolis, and what a party it was! It was hard not to get caught up in the “Big Game” buzz last week. Football was on everyone’s brain, and we are so happy to have been able to share Gridiron Guru with you. This was part 1 of our m+s+g=l? learning lab experiment.

Our sign-ups were modest, but we had players from all over the world take part. The top score achieved topic mastery of all four paths AND amassed a Grab Bag score of 126,000,000. Talk about self-directed learning!

Part of social learning is that the “teacher” learns too. Unlike the bearded character in our game, we are NOT Gurus who have achieved mastery. We know what we are good at and love using our expertise, but there is always more to learn. And boy, did we learn a ton from putting this game together! Here are 5 take-aways for you to consider as you begin looking at ways to “gamify” your training and create opportunities for informal, non-traditional learning on mobile platforms.

1. Respond to results in real time. Social learning platforms enable facilitators to respond to the needs of learners in a more immediate, direct fashion. The admin side of the game engine we created for this (KnowledgeGuru)  has a robust set of reports that allow us to see what learning objectives and questions were the hardest. Here is a quick view at part of a learning objectives report:

Do you remember the first time you used a touch-screen device like a modern smart phone or tablet computer? The sensation you felt as you used what previously was a common tool (phone or computer) in a completely new way? It’s a definitive experience for many people and it comes as no surprise that touch-screen interfaces, which initially have been so popular in smart-phones, have now become such a disruptive technology in the portable computer market.

What got me thinking about this was something I read in Harold D. Stolovitch & Erica J. Keeps’ excellent “Telling Ain’t Training”. In it they explained, “the five senses are the portals through which the raw materials for learning enter our bodies. The more of the learner’s senses we engage in organized and meaningful ways, the more easily learning can occur”. This implies that, in addition to audio and visual interaction, the act of adding tactile interaction with your material can have a direct impact on learning.

Now certainly using your fingertips to navigate and interact with activities within an eLearning course is a limited use of the touch sense. However it is increasing the channels of communication that the learner is using to process the material. What does that mean? Again, Stolovitch and Keeps write “By targeting site, hearing, touch, smell, and even taste, we increase attention because the learner simultaneously engages several senses in a complimentary (nonconflicting) manner. This results in heightened comprehension and retention. Stimulus variation offers a greater payoff.” (Note: emphasis mine).

There seems to be something hard-wired in us that make touch-screen interfaces immediately accessible. There are countless videos online of young children, some just a year old (!), intuitively navigating the interface on an iPhone or iPad without any prior experience. They change screens, open applications, and play with the interface is a very effortless way.

Intentionally, touch-screen interaction is simple in comparison to a standard keyboard/mouse interface. The focus is on the user experience and creating fluid interface design so that users are able to easily find and use what they are looking for. This works well for a majority of people because it digs away at the technical barrier between human and machine. By eliminating an extra layer of separation between the user and the content, we are empowering users who are not as computer savvy as others, giving them the same relative level of access and control to the information.

This isn’t just great interface design however; there is something psychological at play as well. In looking into this further online I found Gary Machionini’s “Psychological Dimensions of User-Computer Interfaces”, which states, “Direct manipulation interfaces (such as touch panels in information kiosks or input devices and graphic displays in most video games) overcome many psychological limitations because they share the ‘load’ between physical and cognitive activity. In addition, their immediate feedback and easily reversibility invites user exploration.” This strongly supports the notion that the varied stimulus of a touch-screen interface, where the physical and cognitive activity is shared, can have a direct impact on actually lowering the limitations of the learner.

As with any new technology the goal for learning designers and educators alike will be to adapt our messages in ways that will take advantage of these new tools. Crafting our content in a way that encourages meaningful, tactile manipulation can add another step in the ultimate goal of helping people learn.

So what do you think? What ways can you think of to utilize tactile interaction to support your content? Have you used a tablet computer yet and if so, what was your impression of the user interface?

We’ve all been there at some point- trying to painfully complete some online course that is really, just plain awful. I can’t tell you how many times I had to just leave an e-learning course on Sarbanes -Oxley. Alas, I managed to read just enough to answer the knowledge checks and get on with life – sound familiar? I gleefully skipped by as many screens as possible.  Had it not been a required course, I would have dropped out around screen 3. Surely, our learners don’t do this in the courses we create.

Well, despite our best efforts to make our e-learning engaging there are additional things we can do to minimize the dropout rate. In the past, I wrote that it’s important for e-learners to set the time aside and treat their e-learning time with the same level of importance as any other work project or at least provide the same level of attentiveness as a live session(Give them Permission to Learn).

This month’s T&D Magazine recommends another method to keep learners engaged, by embedding self regulating questions in the course. For example at the end of each module you might instruct the learner to ask themselves, “Am I concentrating on the material?” or “Do I understand the key points necessary for performance on my job?” The article’s author, Tracy Sitzmann, shares the results of a study she conducted that demonstrated a “17% reduction in course attrition rate when learners are prompted to self-regulate.”[i] I really like the idea and can see how this would be an effective way to keep learners engaged in the process. Additionally, I think it can improve learning transfer, especially if the questions speak to how they’ll use the information on the job.

Have you used this method or similar ways to help learners self-regulate? What was the result?

“Emotion is the fast lane to the brain.” These are the words of Doug Stevenson, author of the Story Theater Method, and speaker at today’s CIASTD meeting.  I have to tell you Doug made me laugh, he made me sad, at times I was touched – the key is I was feeling and learning at the same time.

The Story Theory Method is about using your personal stories to enthrall and engage learners to make a point. It’s about engaging the right side of the brain, tapping into the audience’s emotions, involving them in your story. Ultimately you land with your learning point on the left side of the brain for long term learning transfer.

Doug encourages us to use this method for all types of training to capture our learners’ attention, even for very left brained topics such as accounting and even if the story seems completely unrelated to the topic. Think about some of your stories, maybe a time you made a mistake at work. In the moment, you probably felt a range of emotions: stress, fear, relief at the resolution. What did you learn from the experience? How can you tie what you learned to the topics you’re training? Share your story with the audience and see if you connect with their right brain and land on the left.

What do you think – is emotion a key to learning transfer?

Jennifer’s post titled Corporate Training – Journalism or Entertainment, really got me thinking about learning versus entertainment. Are they congruous or exclusive? I want to believe training can effectively be delivered in an entertaining way. I for one want to be entertained. However, is it possible that I may learn more from something on the boring side? Possibly, it is a fine line to follow.

Let’s consider a couple examples. How frequently does an instructor lead training have a lively and entertaining facilitator, is fun to attend and popular with learners? In reality, the course, while entertaining, provided minimal knowledge transfer on the job. Or, how about an e-learning course full of slick graphics, videos, and audio – it has it all. Very entertaining, but it overwhelms the learner’s cognitive abilities to process information and suppresses learning. (1)

Where is the balance? One key lies with the audience’s knowledge of the topic. A more savvy or knowledgeable learner can process more sensory data than a learner who is completely new to the topic.  So, you may be able to provide more entertaining visuals, audio, etc. But what does this mean for our courses developed for greener audiences? Balance is the key. Present information graphically where possible, but ensure the message isn’t lost in the aesthetics. Use audio to support a narrative, but don’t go overboard with the characters. (2)

As learning tools progress in the use of technology the balance between learning and entertainment is increasingly difficult to maintain. As we use more games and videos for learning how do we ensure that we maintain the balance of the learner having fun while ensuring appropriate knowledge transfer?

1,2:  Ruth Colvin Clark and Richard E. Mayer, e-Learning and the Science of Instruction,  (San Francisco, CA, Pfeiffer Publishing/John Wiley & Sons, 2003)

Two great things for you to read this week. The first is an article from the Wall Street Journal that calls into question the value of experience in management and leadership. The article focuses on leaders whose past positive experiences caused them to make poor decisions in subsequent situations.  In one instance, a seasoned project manager with 10+ years’ experience performed far worse on a simulated project management exercise than a new PM – coming in over budget and past the timeline on the project. According to the article, this failure of experienced project managers is not an uncommon occurrence.  The reason? Seasoned managers tend to review past experiences and assume what worked in the past still applies to present situations. In other words, if a strategy worked before, then it will work again. The problem? Situations change and experienced managers and leaders can fail to recognize this fact. Current contexts can require new paradigms. Experience can work against you in these contexts.

Now, the second – even more radical – idea. Goal-setting is bad. Will Thalheimer, in his blog, “Will at Work,” shares a very thought-provoking research paper, “Goals Gone Wild,”  out of Harvard on the unintentional bad effects of goal-setting.  According to the research cited in the paper, goals can narrow our focus to the point where we miss great opportunities or fail to spot risks. They can incite unethical behavior, and they can actually de-motivate. In other words, the measurable goals we’ve always been told to set if we want to see improved employee performance can actually cause far more harm than good.

Read both articles yourselves. I’m anxious to hear what others think about the contentions that experience can be more of a negative than a positive and setting specific goals can cause more harmful effects than helpful benefits to individual and organizational performance.

I loved the issues raised in Jennifer’s post on linking learning to the workplace  that I have to write my own. I started out simply commenting on hers…but my comments got pretty lengthy so I’m going for a full post.

I’m going to sound a bit cynical but I think the #1 reason people don’t implement change is because it’s not necessary for their imminent survival/coping on the job/succeeding in their jobs.  We change when we have to change. We resist change when we don’t absolutely have to make it. We have to feel compelled to change before we will make change happen.  I also think there is lots of “training” out there that is not really designed to change anything – it gives out lots of information, but very little application so people don’t know HOW to implement the change in their jobs..

Case in point: How many of us know we should lose weight, exercise more, develop better sleep habits…or whatever? Yet…how many of us are actually successful at implementing lifestyle changes to make these things happen? Often, the only thing that COMPELS us to make a lifestyle change is a scary diagnosis from the doctor (i.e. diabetes, heart disease, etc.) or some sort of “crash” in our personal lives.  In other words, we often seem more motivated to make a change to turn a negative situation into a positive one than we are to make a change when things are already positive.

Once we get that scary diagnosis or wake-up call, we start seeking out lots of advice and counsel on how to make changes. We hook up with the personal trainer at the local Y, we schedule an appointment with a nutritionist, or we seek out online step-by-step guidance from a website. We drive the change, in other words, because we have a compelling reason to change: our personal well-being and happiness.

I don’t think creating an action plan at the end of a training program – online or F2F – is going to make me change my behavior on the job.  Neither will talking to my peers or my boss if I don’t see the clear, compelling reason to make a change. Conversely, if I buy into the case for change and see that it will make things better (mostly for me) – or avoid some serious worse consequence -  I may be motivated to change.

The problem is…most training programs don’t even attempt to explain and illustrate “what’s in it for me” messages or identify the actions required to change….or provide explicit “show me how to change” steps. Heck – most training programs don’t even want to go beyond a Level I evaluation that asks, “did you like the training?” Worse, most people take training in a vacuum, which means once they complete it, it never gets discussed again. How important is any training program, really, if it’s not worth at least one conversation with a boss or a peer after the fact?

Finally…how many of us learn to do anything with 100% proficiency after a single training course on it? Even the best training programs end with the learner at the point of conscious competence – if they think and concentrate hard enough on what they are doing, they can do a task or behavior correctly.  It takes time and coaching for learners to achieve unconscious competence or fluency, which means they do things correctly without thought or undue mental effort.

I’d tell the folks at the Wall Street Journal that it’s not about creating an action plan, talking with peers, or having sessions with your boss, I’d say it’s about being allowed time to integrate the new skill, being required to do so, and being coached to succeed in doing so.