Disentanglement

In learning and development there is always this curious conflation between what we are doing and what we are trying to do. Take 'performance' for example: imagine that you go to see a movie, and on the way out you are stopped by a researcher: 'how was it?' they ask 'what made it good?'

'Great' you reply 'the story was good, the characters believable - it was pacy...'

'Anything else?'

'well - I suppose I enjoyed the popcorn, the seats were comfy...'

'and will it affect your performance in future?'
'What...!?'

 

The face-to-face training format is generally geared towards delivering an experience - the kind about which it is entirely legitimate to ask 'did you enjoy it?' but odd to ask 'will it affect your performance?'

And this is what lies at the heart of the problems with online learning: learning professionals know how to deliver a good experience in a room (an entertaining presenter, a good venue, food, variety, enthusiasm, activities, networking etc.) but we have not yet figured out how to deliver a good experience online (at least not in a learning context). That's why elearning people keep saying 'but look at games!'. The fact that most successful games are not effective learning experiences is neither here nor there - they are engaging experiences, period. So we covet them.

Why should this matter to us? Because asked what they think about elearning most learners will, indeed say that it compares poorly to classroom learning, i.e. it is not as good an experience. (it is generally more effective learning, though - according to this US Dept for Ed. study). But the conflation here is rarely made explicit: 'was it a good learning experience?' we ask.
 

There are times when it really matters to training organisations that they deliver a good experience. Of course if we were really serious about performance - about changing behaviour - we have known how to do this for some time. We see it in action every time we watch 'Supernanny' (or something similar). The answer is reinforcement. Positively reinforce desired behaviours, negatively reinforce undesirable ones. By and large behaviours influence attitudes, not the other way round, so trying to address attitudes in order to bring about behavior change is largely fruitless. The best courses change behaviors by changing behaviors.
 

But if we're serious about performance, the format for effecting behaviour change would likely not be an event at all - online or otherwise (typically behaviors regress when Supernanny exits). It would more likely be a little widget that sits in the corner of your screen - let's call it an XP bar - that reliably and methodically rewards you for doing the right thing; or regular, timely and specific feedback from your line manager.

Finally, a parting thought: the addictive nature of many games depends not on them being 'fun' or 'engaging' in any normal sense of these words - but on carefully constructed reinforcement schedules. You do mindless, repetitive stuff and get points (it's called 'grinding'). When we get together to talk about learning, about what we are doing, about what we should be doing and how we evaluate it, often these strands swirl about without ever being disentangled.