Clive On Learning - Details

Caspian Learning has produced a useful taxonomy of immersive learning simulations in their white paperSerious Games in Defence Education(Word or PDF, 4MB). Although the paper addresses a single vertical market, the taxonomy is of general interest.

Here's a list of the categories in the taxonomy (the descriptions are mine, not theirs):

Egocentric performance sims
Single player game, where the player takes on the role of a single character in a 3D space. Caspian's own sims fit this category.

Branching story sims
Single player games, in 2D or 3D, in which the 'story' advances on the basis of the user's selections from the options available.

Real-time strategy sim
Simulation in which the user takes an over-arching strategic role, rather than one of a particular character. The user has control over a range of resources and must respond to an evolving scenario in real-time.

Exocentric sims
The player has an angled overhead view of a 3D world and has control of characters and objects within the world, typically with a point and click interface. The action unfolds in real-time.

Construction and management simulation games
The player must build, manage or expand an entity or project, such as a town, country or enterprise, with limited resources. Classic example is SimCity.

Episodic sim
Like real-time strategy sims, but turn-based. Typically the user has as much time as they wish to make their decisions. Once submitted, the user's input is then processed according to a model and the scenario modified accordingly. An example would be a classic business game.

Virtual worlds
Real-time, multi-player 3D environments in which the user takes on a specific role, represented on screen by an avatar. Obvious example is SecondLife, but also includes proprietary systems such as Forterra.

Device-based sims
Here the user has highly-realistic control over a device such as an aeroplane or a vehicle.

In his postingAll of the Above - how to cheat Multiple Choice Questions, Donald Clark provides the following quote from a talk given by Professor Dylan Wiliam, Deputy Director of the Institute of Education, gave at theALTconference in 2007:

“The variability at teacher level is about four times the variability at school level. If you get one of the best teachers, you will learn in six months what an average teacher will take a year to teach you. If you get one of the worst teachers, that same learning will take you two years. There’s a four-fold difference in the speed of learning created by the most and the least effective teachers. And it’s not class size, it’s not between class grouping, it’s not within class grouping– it’s the quality of the teacher.”

I'm sure he's right, although my contention would be that, if you have a really bad teacher, you'llneverlearn however long the experience lasts, because you just give up.

And of course bad teaching can occur online as well as in the classroom, except that bad e-learning materials are going to be even less effective than what you'd experience in a classroom. At least online you can simply shut the window down and get on with something else, without any embarrassment to the teacher.

The four-fold difference between the best and the worst teachers that Wiliam cites doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I learned long ago that it pays to choose your specialist help with care. The best graphic designers are at least four times better and quicker than the second best. The best programmers create almost error-free code in no time at all, whereas the worst will never get rid of the bugs. That's why it's always worth paying above the average - in the end you get what you pay for.

Seeing this pic on theThinking Worlds Blogof the team at Caspian Learning celebrating their award for best game or simulation at last Thursday'sE-Learning Awardsin London (and yes that'sDonald Clarkthere on the left, joining in) reinforced for me just how much fun these events can be, particularly when you're a winner.

Because it's easy to get cynical about these things, I thought I'd revisit an article I wrote on the subject back in 2004, but which seems as relevant today. Sorry if it's a little long ...

At the time of writing, the award season has once again come to a close and entrants are either licking their wounds or polishing their trophies. Having experienced these events for just about twenty years now, it seems fitting to reflect on what they have contributed to the training industry, in particular that branch now rather ambiguously labelled e-learning.

Perhaps a good place to start is to ask why it is that we need award ceremonies at all. After all, haven’t we got enough pressures on ourselves to deliver on the promises we have made to our employers and our clients, without pitching ourselves into the heat of battle with our peers in other training departments or with other providers? Isn’t the very purpose of training to foster collaboration rather than fuel competition? And anyway, how can anyone judge whether one training project or programme is any better than any other– surely it depends on the objectives, on the audience and, let’s face it, the budget?

All good excuses, but all miss the mark. Even if, as was tried in the 1980s, we try and suppress the competitive instinct by having our children play games where everyone wins, we are only delaying the inevitable. The world out there is hard and to be a survivor you have to have the confidence to at least try to be a winner, even if that means that others inevitably lose out. And, as any sportsperson will tell you, competition can be extremely stimulating, not least in its effects on standards, as well as attracting a lot of attention from those spectators who are gunning for one or other of the combatants. We do training no favours by trying to isolate it from the competitive world for which it is charged with preparing the participants.

In fact, there are far more winners than losers in any award ceremony. First of all, the industry as a whole benefits from an annual showpiece that attracts plenty of publicity. The attendees benefit from the opportunity to dress up as if they were at the Oscars, swank around in posh hotels and to let their hair down cheering, drinking and dancing. Of course the organisers benefit too– the more awards on offer and the more nominees, the more tickets they can sell to companies wanting to celebrate their success in front of as many witnesses as possible.

Those who expected to do well but didn’t get the opportunity to make their victory speeches, may be questioning the equity of the whole process. Did money change hands? Perhaps it was a political decision. Maybe it just wasn’t our turn to win. It’s easy to be cynical about how the prizes are awarded, but in my experience serving as a judge at various industry events over many years, there are no scandals to uncover. I have never known an event organiser to successfully prejudice the judges’ decision, nor for the judges to be unduly influenced by political pressures. I’ve seen plenty of plain daft awards, but that’s because judges are human beings and the process is essentially subjective, and because sometimes they disagree with me.

So, should we take training awards seriously, or can we laugh them off as just a bit of harmless fun? Well, there’s no doubt the receivers of awards take them seriously, to the extent that they will issue press releases within twenty-four hours of their hangovers subsiding and then hang the awards with pride in their reception areas. An award may even keep them in a job, by demonstrating to their employers and clients just how favourably they compare within their particular profession.

And don’t doubt that the industry as a whole takes them seriously. I was at a plush do held by the corporate video industry in the late 1980s, hosted by a well-known TV presenter now best known for challenging contestants to win a million. He was, understandably I felt, tempted to snigger a little at the titles of some of the nominations for video awards:‘Insolvency: Your Opportunity in Adversity’;‘Meet the JX25A Switchboard’, and so on. Hardly the BAFTAs, that’s true, but Chris Tarrant (for that’s who it was) learned never to make fun of a person’s career. A rather elderly gentleman, much the worse for drink, stormed on to the platform and ranted at the outrage he felt at the ridicule being heaped on his beloved corporate video industry, when they should instead be celebrating a year of outstanding endeavour and achievement by talented and committed professionals. Phew. A couple of minutes after he was escorted back to his seat, the man collapsed and an ambulance arrived to take him to hospital.

It isn’t just the celebs who deserve to dress up and strut in the spotlights. We’re putting in as much effort for much less reward. Let’s enjoy our nights out.