http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasional-rants/en-GBSquarespace Site Server v5.8.4 (http://www.squarespace.com/)Simon BostockThu, 03 Dec 2009 14:29:58 +0000http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasional-rants/2009/12/3/formal-informalthe-importance-of-intention.html#comments37576:337911:comment/6508821
I'm interested in the tension between elearning content providers and informal learning. Classroom-based training is pretty much toast. But I don't get why we would move from one classroom to another bounded arena.

I realise I'm probably saying nothing new by saying it here. But some people evidently do believe that eLearning (provided by an eLearning provider) is where things are headed.

What I'm trying to grasp is, why? Some of the eLearning advocates are undoubtedly biased and have their own self-interest at heart. But not all of them.

eLearning 'courses', like textbooks, are a necessary evil. Are there outstanding examples of eLearning which are engaging, open-ended and focused on non-process-oriented facts?]]>Patrick DunnThu, 26 Nov 2009 09:29:35 +0000http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasional-rants/2009/11/23/whats-the-cost-of-a-cheap-immersive-3d-learning-game.html#comments37576:337911:comment/6430331
But your comment on the budget is, in your own words "wrong". I myself offer high level consulting around design and innovation and would include this in the calculations provided. Indeed, this kind of tool, as it enables a single person to consult, advise, design and build, lends itself to a more consultative approach. Further, my experience is that when e-learning agencies mention "design consultancy", and its associated high costs, it often involves barely qualified people taking too long understanding what's really going on.

My cost comparison is with the average of 4 "rapid" jobs I've been involved in, through e-learning agencies in the last year. In each case, wasteful resourcing and bureaucratic complexities within agencies added costs that provided no value to the client. The role I played in these was similar to that I typically play using my "Boutique Production" method - other than that I had to work with slower, less responsive build, design, admin and PM staff who effectively got in the way.

A quick point about DIY. Certainly, in the past, DIY approaches have been associated with amateurism and poor quality. No doubt about it. But a broadly skilled individual, working alone or with a tiny support team, and using the right tools, is now perfectly capable of producing outputs that are in every way comparable to the best outputs of a larger organisation. Indeed, the evidence I'm getting is that the quality is better, the costs are lower and the delivery is quicker. The core problem with DIY is about capacity.]]>IanThu, 26 Nov 2009 08:54:19 +0000http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasional-rants/2009/11/23/whats-the-cost-of-a-cheap-immersive-3d-learning-game.html#comments37576:337911:comment/6430280This, I'm afraid, is an example of e-learning for the sake of it. I could have learnt the information in the same time by reading a nicely laid out document, maybe including some video clip (or 3D animated) examples with questions after.
Instead I failed the task and had no desire to career around the office like a drunk at the office Christmas party!
Plus your budget analysis is wrong. You should compare the price to a DIY rapid elearning, not a consultancy one.]]>lachimThu, 29 Oct 2009 12:17:12 +0000http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasional-rants/2009/10/12/dont-assume-our-business-leaders-are-e-learning-luddites.html#comments37576:337911:comment/6058480eLearning ToolsThu, 15 Oct 2009 06:21:35 +0000http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasional-rants/2009/9/1/rapid-tools-will-stimulate-more-creative-e-learning.html#comments37576:337911:comment/5882594Chris BranniganWed, 30 Sep 2009 07:00:49 +0000http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasional-rants/2009/7/30/creating-engaging-e-learning.html#comments37576:337911:comment/5669947
Your thoughts on design process resonate highly with me. In designing Immersive Sims we have moved from the linear based approach to an agile iterative process that uses many of the principles you describe. The linear approach gave clients a great document and gave us credibility in getting projects, but in practice was completely unsuited to producing an effective experience. The agile methodology, the use of prototypes, continual playtesting has turned this on its head. Instead of a monstrous design document, the client gets prototypes that are then continually added to, refined and tested through a specific cycle of iterations that deliver the agreed outcomes.
The process delivers much better solutions, its faster and clients prefer it as it involves them much more in a creative process, its much more flexible and they see progress much sooner. We needed tools to make this really work, but once we had them then the dyke burst and a move to the agile process was inevitable.]]>Chris BranniganSun, 27 Sep 2009 20:14:56 +0000http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasional-rants/2009/9/24/who-designs-serious-games-continued.html#comments37576:337911:comment/5636133
One of the best serious games I have seen this year was actually developed by a creative agency - the Start Thinking Soldier campaign had an SG as its center peice.
http://www.army.mod.uk/news/13695.aspx

It was produced by Skive http://skive.co.uk/#/featured/start-thinking-soldier]]>Brian BishopSat, 26 Sep 2009 18:52:35 +0000http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasional-rants/2009/9/24/who-designs-serious-games-continued.html#comments37576:337911:comment/5630579
As the Head of Instructional Design for a serious games company, I've let game designers build serious games. Empirical evidence proves that they always miss the point: improving performance and changing the behavior of the learner. While they can build scoring, create interesting narratives, and anticipate game patterns, game designers rarely, if ever, achieve the learning objectives of the business client.

One of the most important things to realize right now is that the serious games industry must offer transition; transition between current comfortable e-learning that learners (remember, most of the workforce is still older than 38) know and top-end, high-fidelity 3D serious games. They cannot simply jump from the former to the latter. Right now, learners and businesses have to experience some features in serious games that they experience in traditional e-learning. Consequently, e-learning IDs are very useful in serious games. Without these IDs, serious games will fall into the same “trough of disillusionment” that virtual reality fell into in the mid 1990s (Stone 2008, p.6).

Becker, K. (2006). Design paradox: Instructional games. Future play, the International Conference on the Future of Game Design and Technology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, October 10-12, 2006). Retrieved July 13, 2009 from http://dspace.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/46728?mode=full.

Squire, K.D. (2008). Video game–based learning: An emerging paradigm for instruction. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(2), p.7-36.

Stone, R.J. (August, 2008). Human factors guidelines for interactive 3D and games-based training systems design. Retrieved June 6, 2009 from http://www.caspianlearning.co.uk/MoD_Defence_Academy_Serious_games_Report_04.11.08.pdf]]>Mark WhiteFri, 25 Sep 2009 00:07:48 +0000http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasional-rants/2009/9/23/dont-just-use-ids-get-some-creatives.html#comments37576:337911:comment/5609291erudyteThu, 24 Sep 2009 23:47:37 +0000http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasional-rants/2009/9/24/who-designs-serious-games-continued.html#comments37576:337911:comment/5609212
Ok, and all, I assume, based on a rigorous framework of evolutionary psychology. Yes?]]>