Tasked with a design challenge in course LRNT524: Innovation, Design, and Learning Environments at Royal Roads University, we (Gavin S. and Amber M.) partnered up to participate in Stanford’s d.school design thinking process (Stanford, 2016). Together, we reached a solution that encourages learners in our respective organizations to take intellectual risks and be engaged in their learning community.
Context
Through design thinking, we discovered our organizations and learners have some crossover.
Our organizations
Both organizations require ongoing, hands-on, skills-based training for learners as well as tracking for regulatory compliance. Both struggle with inconsistent instructor delivery, limited budgets, and difficulty coordinating in-person sessions.
Our learners
Learners hold safety-sensitive positions in both organizations (Amber’s are trades workers; Gavin’s are volunteer firefighters). Learners are geographically dispersed and located in remote communities, have different levels of computer savvy and technological comfort, and work variable hours that make attending scheduled training a challenge.
In-person training is critical for our learners, so we focused on prototyping an online learning community that would drive offline (real life) engagement and intellectual risk-taking.
Empathic Design
Our prototype incorporated four layers of sensitivity found in empathic design (Mattelmaki et al, 2014). Our learners have various skill sets, motivations, and needs we needed to account for (sensitivity toward humans) while ensuring content was relevant, authentic, and problem-based (sensitivity toward design) through real-time and in-person delivery that drove teamwork (sensitivity toward collaboration) and used technology appropriate for all levels of experience (sensitivity toward techniques).
Prototype
One prototype component used was gamification, with an approach similar to consumer rewards credit cards (the more it’s used, the greater the reward). Below are four features we came up with:
Learning target
Organizations assign a target value (e.g., 10,000 virtual points) to each learner’s annual learning plan. To demonstrate they have met their learning plan, learners must reach the target value. They can accumulate points by participating in learning activities. This feature addresses the organizational need for compliance tracking and sets expectations for learners, reflecting Gagne’s second event of instruction, expectancy (Thomas, 2010).
Flexibility of choice
Learners decide how to earn points by choosing which activities to participate in (e.g., attend in-person training events, respond to peer questions in discussion forums, or share lessons learned via blog posts) based on geographic or time availability. This feature uses self-directed learning (Merriam, 2001, as cited in Vann, 2017) and personalization (Bates, 2016) to mitigate obstacles to learner engagement.
Engagement and intellectual risk-taking
Points correspond to learning activities based on the engagement and intellectual risk-taking required. Attending training events might equal 1000 points while asking or responding to questions might equal 250. Based on social constructivism (Anderson, 2016), this feature directly addresses our design challenge.
Motivation
Progress is tracked with points. At key milestones or achievement levels (e.g., 2500, 5000, 7500, and 10000 points), learners can redeem points for real-life, tangible rewards. Each achievement level provides more rewarding options, allowing learners to “level up.” Learners can also choose rewards most meaningful to them. This feature draws on motivation theory (The RSA, 2010) and behaviourism (Ertmer & Newby, 1993) by encouraging continued learner participation.
Anticipated Challenges
We empathize with the struggles our learners face and know our prototype does not address all of them. An online community that is device and platform agnostic might remove technology barriers, live-streaming or on-demand services might mitigate geographic obstacles, and events in multiple locations might help avoid scheduling issues. Even so, we acknowledge our prototype is in its infancy. Do you have suggestions for testing our prototype or improving its features? We welcome your feedback in the comments.
References
Anderson, T. (2016). Theories for Learning with Emerging Technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and Innovation in Digital Learning: Foundations and Applications (p. 38). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771991490.01
Bates, T. (2016). Choosing and using media in education. In Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning (pp. 334). Vancouver BC: Tony Bates Associates https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Ertmer, P.A. & Newby, T.J. (1993) Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.
Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What Happened to Empathic Design? Design Issues, 30(1), 67–77. Retrieved from http://10.0.4.138/DESI_a_00249
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning continue to be important to our present-day understanding of adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-13. doi:10.1002/ace.3
Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). A virtual crash course in design thinking. Retrieved from http://dschool.stanford.edu/dgift/
The RSA (April 1, 2010). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc
Thomas, P. Y. (2010). Learning and Instructional Systems Design, 181–290. Retrieved from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4245/04Chap 3_Learning and instructional systems design.pdf
Vann, L. S. (2017). Demonstrating Empathy: A Phenomenological Study of Instructional Designers Making Instructional Strategy Decisions for Adult Learners. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(2), 233–244. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe?
Amber and Gavin
First and foremost, great job on your prototype. This was a unique approach to incorporating the ever-growing gamification concept and this gave me a number of ideas for my own workplace.
I liked the idea of incorporating gamification and blending the in-person training and online component. My question is, what if the learners only choose online components, or only choose in-person events and accumulate points strategically through avenues they are comfortable with? Ultimately avoiding the learning opportunities they might be resistant to? For example, a skill worker might be uncomfortable using a computer, therefore they might opt to only engage in the in person seminars and activities. Do you think this would defeat the purpose of trying to engage “new to technology learners” in the online learning community?
How can you ensure that the students are getting a blend of the learning opportunities available? For skills sets required by firefighters for example, how can you confirm the proper lifesaving training has been acquired if they get to choose what they want and don’t want to learn? Is there a way to categorize mandatory training within the gamification process?
Tapping in to that motivational piece was bang on and I like the milestone idea for the learners to work towards. I wonder though, for the very different industries you’ve mentioned, one being for profit and the other being volunteer based, how can you continue to motivate when monetary prizing might not be an option?
Great job Amber and Gavin!
Katie, so many questions! We’ll tackle most if not all of them in our essay, so thanks for that. But in case you were wondering for non-school purposes, my unresearched opinion at the moment is that we are totally fine with learners doing only online or only in-person components, as long as they are engaging in some way. Even if they stick to what they’re comfortable with, online or off, they’ll still have opportunities stretch themselves by participating in activities that require them to interact with learners in other communities (a form of intellectual risk taking), which we can ensure by how the points for learning activities are allocated. Our prototype assumed that all of the learning objectives in a learner’s annual plan were mandatory, so it would be part of the instructional design process to weight the activities in such a way that the points accumulated accurately reflect the learner’s participation and achievement. The only time we wouldn’t give them options is if legislation mandated a specific format for the activities for compliance purposes, like the lifesaving training you mentioned. Lastly, we did talk about the motivations for different learners. In Gavin’s case, money wasn’t a motivator for volunteers, so non-monetary rewards would be effective. They could include public recognition for their contributions, like being featured in the community paper or being asked to take on more responsibility in the department. Gavin might have other ideas. In my case, workers would definitely be more motivated by annual bonus incentives, paid time off, etc.
Hi Gavin and Amber –
You have developed an interesting approach. I enjoyed reading how you applied empathic design sensitivities to development of your prototype. Although your respective learners are different, they share similar needs for safety requirements, and a gamification process may work in both environments.
I think establishing an annual target is a logical starting point, as is the flexibility of choice. I would be concerned around the activity participation in that you not be able to offer a fully-open choice to your learner group, and may have to have mandatory and optional content categories in order to provide for standards compliance or other legislated requirements.
Assigning points based on the level of interaction or risk-taking is logical, and something the learner groups could readily understand. I like the idea of having a points redemption policy as an incentive. For one of my jobs as an academic and technical editor we have karma points associated with our assignments that can be redeemed as gift certificates.
One final point I’d like to make is with regards to your learner group’s variable technical savvy and comfort levels. How are you going to overcome that issue? For example, someone who is comfortable participating in discussion forums may accrue points much more quickly with far less effort than someone else with significant knowledge to share who isn’t familiar with working in discussion groups or other online venues.
By the way—and this point doesn’t pertain specifically to your proposal—your post is extremely well-written.
Good day, Amber and Gavin.
Thank you for your post and suggested prototype. In my work, I also support learners to complete mandatory training to regulate compliance with industry standards and face the exact same challenges you described around instructor inconsistencies, limited budgets and training coordination. Although my learners do not hold safety-sensitive roles, they are geographically dispersed, work variable hours and their roles do include significant fiduciary risks, so I see some crossover in my workplace.
I found your prototype of using gamification to engage learners and encourage participation to be practical, especially when embedded in the empathic design approach you propose.
Three specifics of your prototype that resonated with me include:
– The learning target provides clear expectations especially when backed up by annual goals.
– I appreciate the idea that each learner can choose which activities would best support them, whether they are in-person, individual or group.
– Your tiered approach to points was interesting as it could encourage learners to take risks by participating in higher value activities, which may be outside of their comfort zone.
Questions the popped up after reflecting on your prototype include:
– As in-person learning is critical to the success of your learners, how would you encourage and support all learners to actively participate? I wonder if completing at least one in-person training would be mandatory? If so, how could you indicate the importance of in-person training to those who prefer do not engage? (Asking for a friend)
– I also wonder if you would measure the success of the various intervention types? If so, can you imagine any ideas around how you could leverage that information in on-going design improvements?
– In reflecting on your ideas, like Katie, I wondered how you could determine which incentives would motivate various participants in your learner group(s). From Amber’s response to Katie’s comments, I see that you did consider this in your prototype design and would be keen to hear if you brainstormed any ideas that would help to ensure that the incentives provided would motivate all participants.
Thanks again for your prototype and the design features you described. You have given me some good ideas that I will consider using in my workplace.
Hi Amber and Gavin,
Very interesting take on incorporating learning for safety oriented positions. The idea of gamification definitely has learners thinking creatively and in different formats than what they may be used to.
You point out one advantage about using a blended learning model, especially when your learners work all different hours. This brought a question of what would be some ways to incorporate the real-life activity points online? How can they take their real-life experiences (attending training events) and demonstrate their knowledge (or prove they attended) in an online format?
I came across an eBook, Gamification in education and business ,that asks 11 “Important Questions to Ponder Before Beginning Development” (Reiners & Wood, 2015). I thought it might be a useful tool to help analyze how gamification can be most effective for your challenges.
Great work and good luck!
Reference
Reiners, T., & Wood, L. (Eds.). (2015). Gamification in education and business. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5
Overall, you have set up the potential for an interesting and more-than-likely very challenging device. Gamification can be a powerful motivator. However, gamification may not always work for everyone.
From preliminary my review, I could see those that those who have more computer experience may move forward much quicker than those who do not have the same level of expertise. Will the quicker “players” or learners share as much as those who are slower? Will you have a scoreboard for all to see, or will each score be listed privately?
Demographics that could also affect intrinsic motivation towards a rewards system may include age, gender, and cultural backgrounds. The differences in demographics could also influence the learners. Koivisto & Hamari (2014) reveal that “women might become more engaged in the social activity than men” and that “younger people while being more susceptible to playful interactions, might also get bored more quickly than more mature users.”
A recommended simplification of the point system may be merited. Instead of a larger amount, such as 10,000, the learner could receive a single credit per accomplished learning activity. Is there a certification at the end of the course? Is there a minimum amount of points to acquire to graduate? I assume that each organization will set this up before the start of the course.
From, my experience with the implementation of gamification, we have found that the novelty does wear off quickly, and the importance of the learning activities soon degraded over time. Specific demographics did not affect this degradation. The learner just placed less and less emphasis on the learning activity as they moved forward. However, this was within an educational environment, and the learner anticipates a grade as a final “reward.”
Very unique approach overall! I would like to see this as a real prototype. Could you have it complete by next weekend? 😉
Darin
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.007
Thanks for such a clear way of presenting your experience with design thinking and your prototype. Curious if you think the process helped you gain connections / find similarities? Of course, I’m sure you can guess that I’m a big fan of the process – especially in terms of how it honors voice and supports divergent thinking. Appreciate your comment “Points correspond to learning activities based on the engagement and intellectual risk-taking required.” Of course, I would suggest this means creating criteria by which you can consistently and fairly determine engagement and risk-taking … Yes, there is always “just one more things” … HA!
Todd and Dugg,
First, the activity is to be designed to allow all learners the ability for completion.
A unique approach to help the professor and instructional designer to gage level student engagement. I am a bit unclear on what content or questions would be used within the questionnaires. Would the type of questions be used in the modules? I see this as a test system almost. Would it be implemented on top of the regular curriculum?
From experience, I have found that questionnaires lose their appeal unless there is some of grade or reward attached. Seaborn & Fels (2014) highlight that “gamification is thought to have been brought about by some converging factors, including cheaper technology, personal data tracking, eminent successes” (p.16). Perhaps you could implement a sense of rewards using points system from gamification theory. However, there may be mixed feedback results based on gender and age (Seaborn & Fels, 2014).
I would like to actually see the results of this prototype. May I have them by Friday? 😉
Great work!
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2014). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. Journal of Human Computer Studies, 74, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006
Hello Amber and Gavin!
You present a great and innovative way to deal with an old problem. The years I taught in the U.S. I always saw teachers (including me) struggling to comply with the amount of professional development hours required per school year, and those hours had to include technology hours as well as pedagogical hours. The latter did not represent a problem for there were enough courses. Technology training was not as common, resulting in people finding it hard to fulfill the quota. Additionally, the school district did not keep track of the hours, so when the time to check came it was totally up to the person to proof having attended enough sessions with copies of the mini-diplomas.
The gamification of the process calls for some infrastructure in order for the points system to function, as well as to avoid multiple counting of the same event for one person. In the end the learner would not have to worry for the housekeeping chores, so to speak, focusing only in what the training sessions would provide as the points score increases. The value in points would reflect also the relevance a particular training has for the company, thus not all training sessions would yield the same amount of points even if they represent the same number of hours… differentiation can help achieve the business’ goals.
And taking differentiation a step further, the points of a training session might end up being different for two individuals given the fact that one of them has not taken training in that area for quite some time which would make the training more valuable, while the other individual might be current in the topic. This could move the learners to take the classes the company needs them to cover.
It is not hard to accept the idea of benefits resulting from this approach. Just like Sandra Gallén mentioned: “These benefits, in turn, derive in two highly positive consequences for the organizations: the increase of happiness and the improvement of the results.” (Gallén, 2016, p. 40). The first benefis cited by Gallén has not been mentioned so far, and it can be interesting to dig deeper into it.
Now a few questions: What would be the mean to manage the points? Would you have a cut-off date to reset the accounts? If a person exceeds the amount of points needed for a period, would there be carry-over to the next period? Would there be a monthly “statement of account”? What system of consequences would you have to foster compliance?
Congratulations for sharing such an interesting perspective!!
Cheers!
Alfonso
References
Gallén, S., (2016) Gamification: A new approach for human resource management (Degree in Administration and Business Management). Universitat Jaume I. Retrieved from http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10234/162061/TFG_2015_gallenS.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y