Game Based Learning
At the most simplistic level, the interest in incorporating games into adult learning is driven by improving recall of the learning material. As more studies are available, and as training is more geared towards the next generation who are already used to game based learning, games will be more prevalent, become more complex, and will be geared towards not just memory recall, but training skills to solve difficult problems. These games will also be very costly to make. This Personnel Psychology paper points out that, “Traditional online training takes an average of 220 hours to create each hour of instructional content, whereas online simulations require 750 to 1,500 hours to create each hour of instructional content.” Of course this doesn’t mean incorporating games is going to take that much effort always; however, it does make me think about how much extra time it takes to adapt material to even a simple game like jeopardy. The same paper outlines how much better game based learners understand the material as compared to traditional approaches, “…trainees in the simulation games group had 11% declarative knowledge levels, 14% higher procedural knowledge levels, and 9% higher retention levels than trainees in the comparison group.” So while the research supports better learning outcomes, it does so at an increased cost of development. Employers will have to do a cost benefit analysis to see if the results are worth it. With very large companies, especially tech based companies, there will be an important scaling factor that will probably weigh toward the ‘worth it’ side. In addition, if such a company has developers on staff already, creating these kinds of training material is much more within reach.
70:20:10
Using the 70:20:10 model has the potential to make stronger connections between specific workplace skills, hands-on learning, and performance. However, the success will really depend on how 70:20:10 is implemented. Since the model is dependent on everyone taking responsibility for learning, the workplace would have to be at a high level of engagement and cooperation to make it work. Some of the literature sites the fact that companies are looking for more cost effective ways of getting employees on board, and reducing formal training costs is very attractive. However, companies and managers need to weigh this against the loss of productivity of mentors and managers, who under this model, will be spending more time with new employees showing them the ropes. I think it would be helpful to implement some ‘reflection-on-action’ circles for new employees, or increase the amount of coaching opportunities available. With more on the job learning, it is critical to create the space for a reflective practice so employees can learn from their mistakes and deliberately consider how they might approach situations in the future, based on their evolving experiences. I think implementing this model could lead to some transformation in certain workplaces if well supported. However, managers and supervisors need to be growth oriented and be able to model the kinds of learning they want to see, which can be a lot to ask in busy work environments when people are already stretched very thin. Though not explicitly a 70:20:10 model, my workplace used to have a strong informal mentoring ‘learn-on-the-job’ approach that worked very well when there were a lot of experienced workers, and new employees came in one at a time at a relatively slow rate. However, due to the shift in demographics and an increase in hiring, the informal approach didn’t work anymore… there were too many newbies and not enough experience to go around. Demographic mix is a very important consideration for this model to work, and if a workplace is going through a ‘boomer’ retirement boom, the mentoring piece could be a weak link. Here’s an article commenting on generational differences and 70:20:10… (while I don’t agree with all their points, there are some interesting perspectives to consider). Overall, the 70:20:10 model has potential to respond to adult learning needs and increase workplace engagement and performance, provided it is well supported and part of the workplace culture.
As an instructor I will look for opportunities to incorporate games where it makes sense. I think adding some interactive scenario based games as well as memory games like jeopardy area easily within reach in the material I need to deliver. I will have to build in the extra time for development, as well as carefully consider what it is that the game is doing to help the learning. I think a poorly designed game could be frustrating and take away from the material or course. I think adding a practice of reflection in training could help support the ‘on-the-job’ kind of training that 70:20:10 aims to achieve. When teaching a new skill in class, I could prompt learners to reflect how it might look on the job, and ask them to anticipate some scenarios the might encounter. I could ask them to make time to reflect on their actual experiences once in the workplace, and refer back to the materials of the course once they have had a chance to try out their new skills. I could also ask them to identify a colleague who already knows how to complete the task or process, and ask them some questions about what works for them and what they have learned by doing the job.
To be prepared to embrace these trends, it is always a good idea to keep reading, attend professional development events and connect with other instructors. New research, teaching aides and things like apps and online platforms change quickly. Fortunately, I enjoy trying new things, so I will be very interested in seeing how I can incorporate the ideas behind games and 70:20:10 in my own workplace.
Learning at Work 