A closer look at using E-learning, Gamification and Simulations
I recently came across this LinkedIn Post which correctly pointed out that while e-learning is all the rage right now, it is expensive to develop, both in terms of financial cost and time. As such, it should only be used where the learning outcomes cannot be achieved through conventional training methods.
It is really something we need to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to implement e-learning or gamification programs.
Gamification can be a subset of e-learning, if it is made electronic, though it can remain as a physical game. Personally, I think physical games are better as they create more engagement amongst the players. That said, programming some parts of the game, to take out tedious calculations which are not part of the Learning Outcomes, could have value. The cost of development would have to be weighed against the frequency of use.
Gamification can serve 2 purposes. At the first stage, it is a wrapper to present the exercises or Learning Outcomes desired. The competitive nature of humans results in higher participation than if it were a mere exercise in the workbook. Humans are one of the few animals that continue to play into their adulthood. That playful trait means that even older Learners (and the 23-year olds who start off with the “I’m too cool for games” attitude) end up participating intently after a while.
At a higher level, gamification should deliver Learning Outcomes, or create realisations, that cannot be achieved through conventional training methods, such as emotional and sensory experiences. Some would call these simulations rather than games. But simulations could be lacking the element of fun (such as a flight simulator for pilots, or Little Annie for medics), and would not be utilized as willingly and frequently by the Learners.
But at the end of the day, learning games need to allow for learning, and not just a game for itself.
At a gaming convention last month, I observed a computer game where a mathematical question was flashed, such as “John weighs 50kg and Jacob weighs 70kg. How much do they weigh in total?” There are then a bunch of squares distributed across the screen with different numbers on them, and the player had to then guide a robot to the square which showed “120”. The Learning Outcomes could have been achieved without the game, and the game was not engaging enough to keep even a 5-year old’s interest beyond 3 minutes, I would guess (I’m 4, so my attention span is really short).
Another computer game trained players’ observation and recall abilities, by presenting various scenes, such as a room filled with items, then requiring them to answer what colour the lamp-shade was, after the scene was removed from the screen. This could have been just as effectively, and much more cheaply, achieved via a set of printed postcards, a separate set of printed questions, and having the player write his answers down and then self-assess by referring back to the postcards.
There was a third computer game which purported to make players aware of global warming issues. It required the player to control a brown bear on a floating chunk of ice, pushing polar bears which come up onto the ice, back into the water. I’m not sure how that teaches about global warming. Why is the brown bear so selfish; the poor polar bears just need a rest. And what’s a brown bear doing in the artic anyway?
No fight with the games; I like pushing polar bears as much as the next guy. But the e-learning value and gamification appear to be rather superficial, with the Learning Outcomes being just as effectively delivered through traditional means, and at the extreme, the players playing for mere entertainment value.
Hence in order to make the development effort worthwhile, e-learning tools and games need to be properly designed with traceable Learning Outcomes achieved.
A realistic, properly designed gamified simulator is the ideal tool to sustain Learner interest and develop applicable Skills in the Learner, which can be applied in the real world, as opposed to mere theoretical Knowledge. Through a gamified simulator, even Attitude can be shaped, as a result of a behavioural change arising from muscle memory developed through repetitive action.
An immersive, realistic simulator would also enable Learners to synthesize Knowledge and Skills, and become aware of gaps in their competency, as well as learning peripheral points, such as the need to consider exposures arising from “misses” when capitalizing on an arbitrage opportunity in Financial Markets, instead of the mere math behind the valuation; things they would not otherwise pick up from a slide deck in class.
To sustain the Learners’ competitive interest, leaderboards and bragging rights need to be crafted into the games as well.
The issue of whether gamification should take place on-screen or on-board needs to be considered as well. Channel News Asia ran a story about how on-screen learning is permanently depriving kids of the ability to learn from their environment. Synapses aside, we could lose our situational awareness as our brains evolve to focus solely on the screen before us, expecting all the answers to come from that space. We already see that, with workers in the office becoming oblivious to side conversations as they focus on their screens.
I am not saying we should not be innovative in our approach or that digitalization is not the way forward. But the innovation has to be truly innovative, and the digitalization must serve a purpose apart from checking off a buzz-word list.
So before excitedly jumping onto the bandwagon of e-learning and gamification programs, be clear whether your games are only there to keep the Learners’ attention, or designed to provide true learning value that's can only be obtained from the activity. This will guide you on how much time and money to invest into it. And consider what the best medium of delivery would be, electronic or physical.
I still like the collective excitement of watching a pair of dice roll.
