All-volunteer classroom
Friday, September 23, 2011 at 10:46PM I recently had a great lunch with Steve Mahaley from Duke Corporate Education and our talk ranged from communities to social media to games and gamification. Our most interesting discussion was about how a training program is like a game. Or, rather, how it can be like a game when its good and how the differences between a program and a game points out some of the inherent challenges to programs.
One definition that sticks out is Bernard Suit's' - - playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles. Steve was particularly interested in this in parallel to training. We often do not get voluntary participants. People are forced to come to programs and consequently, it undermines the implementation of other game mechanics.
How do we overcome the challenge of voluntary participation? Motivation and connection. Adult Learning models assume that engaged learning requires voluntary desire - or at least coerced desire. Andragogy suggests that we let the participants know what they will learner and why it is significant. This is why a roadmap of the program and a contextualizing from leadership are essential early in the schedule. Also, andragogy reminds educators that motivation in adult is increasingly intrinsic. This doesn't mean that extrinsic motivation is ineffective - people do participate in trainings in order to get promotions and raises - but that without intrinsic motivators, participation will not be as engaged.
Voluntary, engaged participation is often called 'buy in' (a game metaphor from poker!). Once buy-in has been achieved, it needs to be constantly re-earned. This is true in games as well, but is often overlooked. Because games are voluntary, players can walk away at any time. Not only that, but players can ignore/break/challenge the rules at any time and still stay in the game. My son pointed this out to me recently. And by 'pointed this out' I mean he changed the rules during a game because it wasn't going the way he wanted. He didn’t buy in to the game anymore, so he changed it. Games handle this need for regular buy-in by offering regular feedback and chances to achieve goals that break up the process. This is another thing we can incorporate into adult education to keep people interested – What’s the prize for winning the week? How do I know I am doing a good job during the session?
In our lunch, Steve wondered if we could get to a point in corporate education where participants are all voluntary. I’m not confident that will happen. However, I think a smart combination of adult learning principles and game mechanics can really help gain and keep volunteers in the classroom.
Reader Comments (2)
A few random thoughts in response:
-- first it's great to hear that Mahaley is still fighting the good fight on gamification - go Steve!
-- you make an assumption that participants DON'T want to go to training -- I think they do. I think their work gets in the way. If they had their druthers, they would volunteer to come, but the system they are a part of (aka, their work environment), prevents/hinders/discourages them from doing so. If it's choice between learning and utilization, utilization wins (particular to professional services.) Examine the SYSTEM they are a part of.
-- motivation comes from goals. Perhaps if were to get clear on the learner's goals, we could more clearly map to motivation. If they don't know their goals, their motivations will be fuzzy, IMHO. If their goal is to figure out their goals, then even that helps.
-- the tension in most learning, as you note Joe, is that is about the "message" that the organization wants their employees to learn/regurgitate/live. The medium in which this message is given (yes I'm channeling McLuhan, he is Canadian after all) usually kills the motivation (yes, I'm thinking death by powerpoint)
-- the challenge is the capture the energy in a forced training situation. Where is the energy? In onboarding (new hires or acquisitions), the energy has to do with anxiety of joining a new organization. The motivation is to understand the lay of the land - expectations, tools, etc. How does one channel the energy into something positive -- either connections with each other, with their new organization, or voicing/airing concerns in a safe way. You know this, it's not new.
I think with gamification and voluntary participation we are perhaps asking the wrong question. It's not just about the individual but the system they are a part of. Use gamification, but use it in a way that makes the experience more authentic -- bring in randomess and the gaming aesthetic it creates, rather than points. Allow rules that channel and focus the energy in the room -- rules that open up the experience rather than shut it down by someone "telling" you what to do. Create teams that support collaboration rather than competition. Ok, this is no longer a comment but a post-in itself. I think I'll reuse. Thanks for the spark.
hey there and thank you for your information – I’ve certainly picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise several technical issues using this web site, as I experienced to reload the website a lot of times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I am complaining, but slow loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and could damage your quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I am adding this RSS to my email and could look out for a lot more of your respective interesting content. Make sure you update this again soon..louis vuitton monogram replica