January 7, 2005
Last night while scanning the bookshelves at Walden Books I found (and ultimately bought) a book on game design. Once at home my son and I went through the text and started brainstorming a new computer game. I was struck by the parallel to training development. I don't know if Jay Cross's Beginning - Middle - End process completely fits, but design, documentation, and development all fit. I was also interested in how they had identified 12 genres of games and a design structure for each one. The designs really reflect the type of learner experience and engagement that results. Once I read the list and saw the concept map or design structure it was quite easy to see the reasoning for the design and what type of game it would be.
Do we have this in training? Am I missing the obvious? I guess a Lesson Plan is our concept map, but we really don't use those in corporate training. A syllabus? They vary so much it's difficult to tell what type of course will be offered. Every training provider has a different approach.
It would appear that the evolution of learning theory still remains too complex to impose strong pedagogy on the industry. If we had to deliver it on a standardized platform (xBox or PSP) would we be able to identify each type of training? Would it be more effective because only effective training would get funding and become published? or would we have a less effective industry because we had so much value when we individual and customize or training?
Posted by Lee Kraus at 12:15 PM