Is Gaming ready for prime-time Training & Education?

May 15, 2009

This is a one-across-the-world summary from ten (yep, count’em 10) different publishes reports, each of which are attempting to help readers and evaluators decide just how to leverage what most training professionals think is the next major addition to the training toolkit — that of Gaming and game-like training into the curriculum.  So, without much more fanfare, here are my selections from these studies. Feel free to comment back on this blog about these quotes, or if you just enjoy taking part in some dialogue on this topic.

 

“What Research Has to Say (Thus Far) About Designing Computer 
Games for Learning” – J.D. Fletcher, IDA et al
If computer games are intended to enhance performance on tasks at 
work or in school, i.e., are intended to transfer, it is vital to identify the 
cognitive processes they require. Evidence has been found of transfer 
from games to targeted task performance (Gopher, Weil, & Bareket; 
1994; Fery & Poserre, 2001; Subrahmanyam & Greenfield 1994; 
Okagaki & Frensch; 1996; Moreno & Mayer, 2004, 2005; Mayer, 
Mautone, & Prothero, 2002). However, the extent of game playing may 
matter. Greenfield, Brannon and Lohr (1994) found that longterm
practice with a video game improved spatial performance, but that 
shortterm practice did not.
“Using Computer Games and Simulations for Instruction:
A Research Review” – J.D. Fletcher, IDA et al
Results suggest that games and simulations improve a variety
of cognitive capabilities. Furthermore, there is evidence for positive 
transfer fromactivities required by games and simulations to real world 
task performance.This transfer appears to depend much more on 
similarities between cognitiveand attention processes than on physical 
similarities….It is clear that there is more enthusiasm about the 
opportunities for learning provided by computer games and simulations 
than there is for conducting empirical studies investigating whether 
these opportunities are actually realized….Finally, these results 
reemphasize the importance of a team approach in designing games. In 
addition to including individuals with expertise in game design, cognitive 
task analysis, and ISD, it is also important for developers to be familiar 
with emerging research results about the effects of games and 
simulations.
“A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning 
effectiveness” – Jerry Gosen et al
Assessing outcomes in learning environments is very important, and we 
believe it is possible to successfully assess experiential learning 
environments. Outside of a very few studies, however, this has not yet 
been consistently accomplished.
Less optimistically and more pragmatically, the most reasonable 
approach to using any experiential method is whether or not it appears 
to be efficacious in the environment designed by the instructor and at 
the same time provides a usable way to assess student learning. Even 
if we do not adhere to the strictest standards, users need reasonably
objective ways to assess student participation in experiential learning 
environments. These assessments should be free from social 
desirability problems, relate to agreed-on learning objectives, and 
provide means for individual assessments of participants. Constructing 
large test banks among other things would be appropriate. Such tests 
should provide reasonably varied and validated items, with at least face
validity, and be arranged topically or by generally agreed-to learning 
objectives. Such tools would permit users to assess game impact on 
each participant in relation to instructor-defined intentions. This would 
allow for ease of use in constructing parallel forms for use in pretesting 
and posttesting by instructors. A major fieldwide effort should be 
undertaken to collect data on test administration so we could develop 
profiles for specific simulations and exercises. If the data suggest a 
given simulation or exercise does what it purports to do, that would be a 
good enough beginning for now. We need to develop standards of 
reasonableness.
“Literature Review in Games and Learning” – John Kirriemuir et al
Teachers and parentsrecognised that games play can supportvaluable 
skill development, such as:
• strategic thinking
• planning
• communication
• application of numbers
• negotiating skills
• group decision-making
• data-handling.
Digital games are clearly an important part of most young people’s lives 
today. Recent figures suggest that nearly 70% of children play 
computer games every week, and mobile games play is increasingly 
common, with 68% of children playing games on their phone every 
week (Facer 2001).
Central to the argument about what video games offer to learning is 
Gee’s assertion that semiotic domains are shared by groups of people, 
described as ‘affinity groups’, sharing knowledge, skills, tools and 
resources to form complex systems of interrelated parts. Within an 
affinity group, learners gain resources from fellow members that equip 
them to solve problems within, and perhaps outside of, the specific 
domain – and this is evidence of ‘active learning’.
What is key to most research into games and learning outside school, 
then, is a sense that playing computer games is encouraging young 
people to learn indifferent ways from those often in evidence, or 
explicitly valued, in the school setting.
“From Gaming to Training: A Review of Studies on Fidelity,
Immersion, Presence, and Buy-in and Their Effects onTransfer in 
PC-Based Simulations and Games” – Amy Alexander et al.
• Gaming technology is often designed for distributed use over the 
internet or local area network. Thus, military trainees worldwide can use 
this technology to simultaneously play required training scenarios.
• Gaming technology often provides trainers with control over the 
scenarios, as do lightweight simulators.
• Like simulators, games have the capacity to emulate the real world, 
and so provide opportunities to train with some realism, but out of 
harms way.
• Both game technology and lightweight simulations can be implemented 
in a low-cost manner and allow for wide usability and private 
development.
The objective of training using games and simulators, of course, is to 
achieve greater positive transfer than slower, more costly, or more 
dangerous training methods, often relying on real-world technologies.
In a military education setting (Woodman, personal correspondence), 
two groups of military officers participated in a training exercise in two 
virtual environments in which aspects of command and control were to 
be practiced. The first was a realistic WWII-era military environment, 
while the second environment was based on the modern military. While 
the underlying training goals and design were the same, participants 
argued that the WWII environment was not adequate for training 
because it did not correspond to their experience. Assuming that the 
resource capabilities and  communications apparatus were exact 
analogs between the two conditions, the identity of the enemy and the 
characteristics of the avatar uniforms should have no bearing on 
training impact. Still, these characteristics were important to the 
participants, and these seemingly small details could prove to be big 
impediments to training.
Based on our literature review, there is high potential for lightweight 
simulations, particularly those based on MMPG technology, to be 
effective mechanisms for military training because they can replicate 
the critical realworld elements. This is especially true for training the 
cognitive skills required for tasks, the coordination and communication 
among team members, and the strategic aspects of many tasks.
“THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INSTRUCTIONAL GAMES: 
A LITERATURE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION” – Robert T. Hays
Instructors should view instructional games as adjuncts and aids to help 
support instructional objectives. Learners should be provided with 
debriefing and feedback that clearly explains how their experiences with 
the game help them meet these instructional objectives.
“Games in Schools” – Paul Pivec & Maja Pivec
This report summarizes the available literature in the field of 
game-based learning and specifically how it relates to teaching in the 
classroom…For the purpose of this report, 42 major studies in the field 
of Game-Based Learning (GBL) over the past 20 years were 
reviewed….These reports cite publications such as Menn (1993), who 
argues that only 50% of what is watched is learnt, 90% of what is 
experienced is mastered, and Prensky (2006), who suggests that 
students will soon be teaching themselves. Levy and Murnane (2004) 
suggests that although schools focus on topics such as math and 
literacy, soft skills like communication, collaboration, and problem 
solving are not taught and these are skills that industry requires. Klopfer 
(2008) advocates education games as a method for teaching soft skills 
by allowing the students to experience learning through role-play and 
games. This teaching methodology is known as constructivism and 
Game-Based Learning is situated in the constructivist arena.
One of the main barriers to the introduction of video games into the 
curriculum is the ability of the teacher to integrate the game into the 
topic. Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2006) concludes that the role of the teacher is 
crucial in achieving the learning outcomes from GBL, be it declarative 
or affective.
“Classification of learning outcomes: evidence from the computer 
games literature” – Harold F. O’Neil et al
While effectiveness of game environments can be documented in terms 
of intensity and longevity of engagement (participants voting with their 
money or time), as well as the commercial success of the games, there 
is much less solid information about what outcomes are systematically 
achieved by the use of individual and multiplayer games to train 
participants in acquiring knowledge and skills.
In terms of goals, however, games and simulations differ. With games, 
once a goal is achieved, it cannot be repeated without intentionally 
reverting to a prior game state or restarting the game, that is, the flow 
of a game must be purposefully interrupted. In a game comprising 
multiple goals, achievement of one goal results in commencement of 
work toward the next goal or set of goals. Therefore, with games, the 
goal structure is linear. In contrast, simulations have non-linear goal 
structures. With simulations, the goal is to achieve a desired output 
state or simply to examine output states, based on the manipulation of 
input variables. Once the goal is achieved, the player can continually 
make modifications to the input variables, examining their effect on the 
output. Therefore, because this process can be repeated as often as 
desired, the goal structure of a simulation is non-linear.
Our position is that games themselves are not sufficient for learning, but 
there areelements in games that can be activated within an instructional 
context that mayenhance the learning process (Garris et al., 2002). In 
other words, outcomes areaffected by the instructional strategies 
employed (Wolfe, 1997).
“The Claims of Games: A Comprehensive Review and Directions for 
Future Research” – Punya Mishra et al
Educational games have become the lightning rod for learning and 
preparing a future skilled workforce. Both the people, who argue against 
and for games agree that learning is possible, but what is learned is 
another issue….We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of existing
research as well as point to areas for future research. In particular, we 
draw attention to the lack of attention paid to the demands of subject 
matter and argue for a greater emphasis on the development of 
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) in the design of 
learning games.
New York Times reporter, Thompson (2006) noted that games are a 
force in society for making people personally become experienced 
about issues that demands their attention, but he also questions if it 
trivializes important causes. In his interview of games proponents such 
as Henry Jenkins and Ben Sawyer, they warn against claims because 
research in game-based studies are so fragmented, though some good 
results have been documented. Games may afford a lot claims for 
learning that have been argued, however, empirical studies in authentic 
settings needs to be done so that these claims are validated. Like 
Squire (2002), Williams (2004), the review by Mitchell & Savill-Smith 
(2004) and Jenkins (Thompson, 2006) indicates, more and better 
research is needed in game-based learning….Without appropriate 
research and methods, games for learning will not advance because 
there would be no way to assess the effectiveness for learning and 
preparing students for innovative jobs of value.

“What Research Has to Say (Thus Far) About Designing Computer Games for Learning” – J.D. Fletcher, IDA et al

If computer games are intended to enhance performance on tasks at work or in school, i.e., are intended to transfer, it is vital to identify the cognitive processes they require. Evidence has been found of transfer from games to targeted task performance (Gopher, Weil, & Bareket;  1994; Fery & Poserre, 2001; Subrahmanyam & Greenfield 1994;  Okagaki & Frensch; 1996; Moreno & Mayer, 2004, 2005; Mayer, Mautone, & Prothero, 2002). However, the extent of game playing may matter. Greenfield, Brannon and Lohr (1994) found that longterm practice with a video game improved spatial performance, but that shortterm practice did not.

 

“Using Computer Games and Simulations for Instruction:A Research Review” – J.D. Fletcher, IDA et al

Results suggest that games and simulations improve a variety of cognitive capabilities. Furthermore, there is evidence for positive transfer fromactivities required by games and simulations to real world task performance.This transfer appears to depend much more on similarities between cognitiveand attention processes than on physical similarities….It is clear that there is more enthusiasm about the opportunities for learning provided by computer games and simulations than there is for conducting empirical studies investigating whether these opportunities are actually realized….Finally, these results reemphasize the importance of a team approach in designing games. In addition to including individuals with expertise in game design, cognitive task analysis, and ISD, it is also important for developers to be familiar with emerging research results about the effects of games and simulations.

 

“A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness” – Jerry Gosen et al

Assessing outcomes in learning environments is very important, and we believe it is possible to successfully assess experiential learning environments. Outside of a very few studies, however, this has not yet been consistently accomplished.

Less optimistically and more pragmatically, the most reasonable approach to using any experiential method is whether or not it appears to be efficacious in the environment designed by the instructor and at the same time provides a usable way to assess student learning. Even if we do not adhere to the strictest standards, users need reasonably objective ways to assess student participation in experiential learning environments. These assessments should be free from social desirability problems, relate to agreed-on learning objectives, and provide means for individual assessments of participants. Constructing large test banks among other things would be appropriate. Such tests should provide reasonably varied and validated items, with at least face validity, and be arranged topically or by generally agreed-to learning objectives. Such tools would permit users to assess game impact on each participant in relation to instructor-defined intentions. This would allow for ease of use in constructing parallel forms for use in pretesting and posttesting by instructors. A major fieldwide effort should be undertaken to collect data on test administration so we could develop profiles for specific simulations and exercises. If the data suggest a given simulation or exercise does what it purports to do, that would be a good enough beginning for now. We need to develop standards of reasonableness.

 

 

“Literature Review in Games and Learning” – John Kirriemuir et al

Teachers and parentsrecognised that games play can supportvaluable skill development, such as:

• strategic thinking

• planning

• communication

• application of numbers

• negotiating skills

• group decision-making

• data-handling.

Digital games are clearly an important part of most young people’s lives today. Recent figures suggest that nearly 70% of children play computer games every week, and mobile games play is increasingly common, with 68% of children playing games on their phone every week (Facer 2001).

Central to the argument about what video games offer to learning is Gee’s assertion that semiotic domains are shared by groups of people, described as ‘affinity groups’, sharing knowledge, skills, tools and resources to form complex systems of interrelated parts. Within an affinity group, learners gain resources from fellow members that equip them to solve problems within, and perhaps outside of, the specific domain – and this is evidence of ‘active learning’.

What is key to most research into games and learning outside school, then, is a sense that playing computer games is encouraging young people to learn indifferent ways from those often in evidence, or explicitly valued, in the school setting.

 

 

“From Gaming to Training: A Review of Studies on Fidelity, Immersion, Presence, and Buy-in and Their Effects onTransfer in PC-Based Simulations and Games” – Amy Alexander et al.

• Gaming technology is often designed for distributed use over the internet or local area network. Thus, military trainees worldwide can use this technology to simultaneously play required training scenarios.

• Gaming technology often provides trainers with control over the scenarios, as do lightweight simulators.

• Like simulators, games have the capacity to emulate the real world, and so provide opportunities to train with some realism, but out of harms way.

• Both game technology and lightweight simulations can be implemented in a low-cost manner and allow for wide usability and private development.

The objective of training using games and simulators, of course, is to achieve greater positive transfer than slower, more costly, or more dangerous training methods, often relying on real-world technologies.

In a military education setting (Woodman, personal correspondence), two groups of military officers participated in a training exercise in two virtual environments in which aspects of command and control were to be practiced. The first was a realistic WWII-era military environment, while the second environment was based on the modern military. While the underlying training goals and design were the same, participants argued that the WWII environment was not adequate for training because it did not correspond to their experience. Assuming that the resource capabilities and  communications apparatus were exact analogs between the two conditions, the identity of the enemy and the characteristics of the avatar uniforms should have no bearing on training impact. Still, these characteristics were important to the participants, and these seemingly small details could prove to be big impediments to training.

Based on our literature review, there is high potential for lightweight simulations, particularly those based on MMPG technology, to be effective mechanisms for military training because they can replicate the critical realworld elements. This is especially true for training the cognitive skills required for tasks, the coordination and communication among team members, and the strategic aspects of many tasks.

 

 

“THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INSTRUCTIONAL GAMES:  LITERATURE REVIEW AND DISCUSSION” – Robert T. Hays

Instructors should view instructional games as adjuncts and aids to help support instructional objectives. Learners should be provided with debriefing and feedback that clearly explains how their experiences with the game help them meet these instructional objectives.

 

 

“Games in Schools” – Paul Pivec & Maja Pivec

This report summarizes the available literature in the field of game-based learning and specifically how it relates to teaching in the classroom…For the purpose of this report, 42 major studies in the field of Game-Based Learning (GBL) over the past 20 years were reviewed….These reports cite publications such as Menn (1993), who argues that only 50% of what is watched is learnt, 90% of what is experienced is mastered, and Prensky (2006), who suggests that students will soon be teaching themselves. Levy and Murnane (2004) suggests that although schools focus on topics such as math and literacy, soft skills like communication, collaboration, and problem solving are not taught and these are skills that industry requires. Klopfer (2008) advocates education games as a method for teaching soft skills by allowing the students to experience learning through role-play and games. This teaching methodology is known as constructivism and Game-Based Learning is situated in the constructivist arena. One of the main barriers to the introduction of video games into the curriculum is the ability of the teacher to integrate the game into the topic. Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2006) concludes that the role of the teacher is crucial in achieving the learning outcomes from GBL, be it declarative or affective.

 

 

“Classification of learning outcomes: evidence from the computer games literature” – Harold F. O’Neil et al

While effectiveness of game environments can be documented in terms of intensity and longevity of engagement (participants voting with their money or time), as well as the commercial success of the games, there is much less solid information about what outcomes are systematically achieved by the use of individual and multiplayer games to train participants in acquiring knowledge and skills.

In terms of goals, however, games and simulations differ. With games, once a goal is achieved, it cannot be repeated without intentionally reverting to a prior game state or restarting the game, that is, the flow of a game must be purposefully interrupted. In a game comprising multiple goals, achievement of one goal results in commencement of work toward the next goal or set of goals. Therefore, with games, the goal structure is linear. In contrast, simulations have non-linear goal structures. With simulations, the goal is to achieve a desired output state or simply to examine output states, based on the manipulation of input variables. Once the goal is achieved, the player can continually make modifications to the input variables, examining their effect on the output. Therefore, because this process can be repeated as often as desired, the goal structure of a simulation is non-linear. Our position is that games themselves are not sufficient for learning, but there areelements in games that can be activated within an instructional context that mayenhance the learning process (Garris et al., 2002). In other words, outcomes areaffected by the instructional strategies employed (Wolfe, 1997).

 

 

“The Claims of Games: A Comprehensive Review and Directions for Future Research” – Punya Mishra et al

Educational games have become the lightning rod for learning and preparing a future skilled workforce. Both the people, who argue against and for games agree that learning is possible, but what is learned is another issue….We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of existing research as well as point to areas for future research. In particular, we draw attention to the lack of attention paid to the demands of subject matter and argue for a greater emphasis on the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) in the design of learning games.

New York Times reporter, Thompson (2006) noted that games are a force in society for making people personally become experienced about issues that demands their attention, but he also questions if it trivializes important causes. In his interview of games proponents such as Henry Jenkins and Ben Sawyer, they warn against claims because research in game-based studies are so fragmented, though some good results have been documented. Games may afford a lot claims for learning that have been argued, however, empirical studies in authentic settings needs to be done so that these claims are validated. Like Squire (2002), Williams (2004), the review by Mitchell & Savill-Smith (2004) and Jenkins (Thompson, 2006) indicates, more and better research is needed in game-based learning….Without appropriate research and methods, games for learning will not advance because there would be no way to assess the effectiveness for learning and preparing students for innovative jobs of value.


How does Twitter help – just take a look.

May 11, 2009

So I have been pondering how to write this post for more than 4 weeks now – during March/April everyone I was talking to and emailing were considering the fate of Blogging during this age of Twitter and Facebook. Well, I for one, sure think that LinkedIN has it all over Facebook for serious business contacts and informal  learning opportunities – while Facebook connects people to those high school chums whom they have not spoken to for 25 years….and did not really need to reconnect to anyway.

So where is Twitter in my opinion – well, I have tried to ponder its possible use as (1) a learning delivery system, as (2) an ad-hoc un-conference creation system and (3) maybe just the telephone, but without long distance charges?

So in order to provide a little substance to my claim (which I am about to make) – I have captured just a smattering of 25 twitters from my measly collection, during the last 5 days – suffice it to say, I only follow 44 other people, which is a tiny amount in the scheme of things.  What I want to prove is that there is a really valuable thread out there in Twitter-Land if you simply look for it, and chuckle mildly at the posts about the pool overflowing, or the dog eating the dinner, or how little rain someone had in Orlando FL. Call that background information, as it’s not noise really – it just as flavor to the stories which are about to be told.

And below, look at the stories being asked about and told – truly, a better investment of my time each week than sitting through 4 hours of online graduate courses in order to get a PhD in Distance Learning or Applied Gaming or Strategic Management or whatever the case may be. There are some really insightful comments made in 160 characters, and some links which prove to be more valuable (and timely) than those contained in Newsweek, Fortune or Wired magazines (each of which cost money, but worst of all, they arrive late – after the news is breaking). Twitter gets you information as it happens, the Space Shuttle taking off (along with a link to a digital photo of course) or of the snow storm in Colorado. Or tweets from the audience of a conference you could not attend (thanks to tighter travel budgets). Really people, isn’t the electronic twitter of that factoid easier to read, save, use, share or utilize – than if you had travelled to Las Vegas to attend that conference in person?

So I wonder what you think of my stance. Facebook is for college kids wasting time, sharing pizza on 3rd floor, and maybe helping people borrow children’s outgrown clothing from teenage chums across town or the state or the US.  Twitter just might become an acknowledged learning platform for FAST, efficient and convenient distance learning.

 

===

IDs deal w/ same data vs aesthetic stand-offs that visual designers do.
Just installed Twitteriffic 2.0 – some really great new features.
NECC “Unplugged” 09 – 3 days where anyone can present, on-site or virtual. 
About 14% of adult Americans have trouble reading. The rest are troubled about what they read.
Axpect Consulting says 56% of Fortune 500 will use serious games in 2009.
June Wired column on Wolfram Alpha is online now. One more chapter in Wolfram’s amazing career. 
NASA shuttle commander to tweet from space! 
The National Museum of Middle Ages in Paris is excellent.  Mostly everday life during 12th to 16th centuries.
“Why Don’t Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and 
What It Means for the Classroom” (Hardcover, published March 2009)
“The Creative Entrepreneur: A DIY Visual Guidebook for Making Business Ideas Real” (Paperback, pub Nov 
2008)
Social Media is well on its way to enterprise mainstream.
There is sufficient heat around virtual worlds for the enterprise that I believe we’ll see a big uptick in exploration 
and adoption over the next 12-24 months.
I will also bang this old drum on both these items – that if we FAIL to think differently about the learning 
opportunities that we can redesign using Social Media and Virtual Worlds, then we would be outright stupid to 
expect any kind of enhanced ROI from those activities. 
Faculty still need to think about knowledge, skills & values.
Pedagogy has to precede the technology.
Most people can multitask, but they’re not as effective as when they don’t (research says).
How is play different for adults, and how does that affect games for learning?
Games should allow us to discover something, not just win.
In designing learning games, most organizations don’t like people to be able to fail, yet failure’s a powerful lrng 
tool.
Better to fail in a game than in real life, hence such widespread military adoption of training games.
Essentially, it’s about teaching brainstorming, systematic evaluation, trial and observation, and honing each time.
Games are movies, books, and our own imagination braided together.
To make more engaging – connect with the learner’s reality (empathy).
Games are great for learning and assessing skills, more diff to make them for pure knowledge transfer, less fun 
too. 
Tighter budgets demand creative solutions–sometimes more money does not = better learning! 

IDs deal w/ same data vs aesthetic stand-offs that visual designers do.

Just installed Twitteriffic 2.0 – some really great new features.

NECC “Unplugged” 09 – 3 days where anyone can present, on-site or virtual. 

About 14% of adult Americans have trouble reading. The rest are troubled about what they read.

Axpect Consulting says 56% of Fortune 500 will use serious games in 2009.

June Wired column on Wolfram Alpha is online now. One more chapter in Wolfram’s amazing career. 

NASA shuttle commander to tweet from space! 

The National Museum of Middle Ages in Paris is excellent.  Mostly everday life during 12th to 16th centuries.

“Why Don’t Students Like School: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom” (Hardcover, published March 2009)

“The Creative Entrepreneur: A DIY Visual Guidebook for Making Business Ideas Real” (Paperback, pub Nov 2008)

Social Media is well on its way to enterprise mainstream.

There is sufficient heat around virtual worlds for the enterprise that I believe we’ll see a big uptick in exploration and adoption over the next 12-24 months.

I will also bang this old drum on both these items – that if we FAIL to think differently about the learning opportunities that we can redesign using Social Media and Virtual Worlds, then we would be outright stupid to expect any kind of enhanced ROI from those activities. 

Faculty still need to think about knowledge, skills & values.

Pedagogy has to precede the technology.

Most people can multitask, but they’re not as effective as when they don’t (research says).

How is play different for adults, and how does that affect games for learning?

Games should allow us to discover something, not just win.

In designing learning games, most organizations don’t like people to be able to fail, yet failure’s a powerful lrng tool.

Better to fail in a game than in real life, hence such widespread military adoption of training games.

Essentially, it’s about teaching brainstorming, systematic evaluation, trial and observation, and honing each time.

Games are movies, books, and our own imagination braided together.

To make more engaging – connect with the learner’s reality (empathy).

Games are great for learning and assessing skills, more diff to make them for pure knowledge transfer, less fun too. 

Tighter budgets demand creative solutions–sometimes more money does not = better learning!