Remember that conversation in Pretty Woman where Edward and his lawyer were discussing their favorite childhood game? Edward liked building blocks (he ends up ditching a huge business profit so he can build ships) and his lawyer liked Monopoly (he lives for the financial kill). Yes, the games we gravitate toward are aligned with our experience, strengths and personal styles.
Our challenge when developing "games" for L&D programs is to develop interesting learning activities. But can those "games" inhibit learning as well? Of course, they can.
I recall a situation where a non-training subject matter expert (I note his background only to illustrate that it's not something the lay person usually thinks about) came up with an activity he thought would be extremely effective but fell flat. The activity was a fairly simple role play in which some participants role played a sales call while others acted as the "buyer". The problem was that many participants were so new to sales that they had no idea how a buyer would act or respond. Their level of discomfort was so strong that a few refused to play their parts. Others did such a poor job that learning was minimal. The situation was easily resolved by bringing in a few seasoned reps for the activity to act as buyers.
The point is simply that we need to take into consideration that because we, the developers of L&D games, may find the game extremely worthwhile, interesting and engaging, we must always consider it from the participant's perspective.
THE QUESTION FOR YOU
What advice can you share relative to creating audience-appropriate games and activities?
Comments