Opening Cinematics in Serious Games

The recent publication of research by Procci and colleagues (available here: http://sag.sagepub.com/content/45/1/93.full.pdf) which focussed on the use of Opening Cinematics in serious games development draws attention to the ever-increasing overlap between the entertainment industry and education. The driver of this overlap is, in many respects, technology but it also speaks to the change in the way individuals expect to consume information regardless of purpose. As we become ever more conversant with technology and, in particular, computing devices we expect to be able to access content for learning in the same way we do for day-to-day communication or entertainment. This crossover is significant since it blurs what are pre-conceived notions of appropriate contexts for learning. Where once we had a well defined and concrete concept of a classroom – the quintessential seat of learning – now we have whole new worlds accessible through a touch screen device. The question, of course, is whether or not this actually improves the learning experience and result.

In essence this is what Procci and colleagues set out to determine. Would the inclusion of an Opening Cinematic which is redolent of the type common in video games, where context and narrative are introduced to motivate individuals to play, be effective in a serious game development? Given the high cost of developing opening cinematics the question is largely one of effective use of resource and ROI. The research focussed on three key areas: Situated Learning, Emotional Arousal and Goal Orientation, each of which is supported by a body of research which has found they are important ingredients in motivation and effective learning.

It’s worth exploring each of these in the context of business simulation where I believe they are particularly evident. The crux of situated learning is that individuals learn more effectively when there is a meaningful context and – crucially – where they can apply the learning. In a business simulation setting we are frequently designing to a context which fits with an organisation’s current view of the world, helping them to work through their ‘burning issues’. As an example, I worked recently with an insurance company which is experiencing a period of fantastic success yet they were challenging their leaders to consider the potential flaws in the organisation which may damage them in the mid to long term.

One such issue was diversity, or to be more precise, the lack of it in their organisation. Within the custom designed simulation I used for delivery we had modelled diversity as a function of the people, skills and experience available in the organisation and directly correlated that with opportunities for transformation. Without the courage to build teams which incorporated and cultivated a diverse range of skills and experience the simulated company was unable to capitalise on opportunities which arose in the market. The success of the simulation was in part due to a context that all participants could engage with as relevant to their business, yet viewed through the lens of situated learning it was the ability to actually practice the development of a strategy for diversity which compounded the learning experience.

The theory and research on emotional arousal posits the view that we are hardwired to recall clearly events that have had an emotional impact and that if training can be designed in this way it will be more deeply encoded resulting in more effective learning. In the simulation environment we deliberately create the kind of stressful environments where cortisol can be released which on a neurological level would explain why simulations are frequently cited by participants as the most effective method of business training when compared with other delivery approaches.

Goal orientation theory is situated within the context of motivation with a distinction drawn in the research between those seeking mastery of a subject and those with a performance orientation. Simply put, the individual who is driven to achieve a goal because it denotes high-performance (particularly in relation to others) is distinct from the individual motivated to master the topic. Where individuals are mastery goal orientated they have a tendency to hone their skills and seek out challenges which help them further refine those skills. In other words, the optimal approach for learning. Within simulation worlds we see individuals demonstrate both behaviours but undoubtedly it is those who aim to understand the dynamics of the simulation and to learn from their decision making processes who gain more from the learning event. Those just looking to ‘win’ can be motivated but, in my experience, lack the ability to reflect meaningfully on what underpinned any success that they gained. More importantly, they can find it difficult to draw useful lessons which they can apply in other contexts outwith the simulated world. They remain ‘in-game’, to some degree.

What is fascinating about this research is that Procci and colleagues concluded there was no significant value add in designing extended opening cinematics for serious games. In fact, they state that “resources should be focused on priming mastery-approach goal orientation and increasing the salience of game goals”. The reason? Most serious games users are already committed to the narrative and context, they recognise the importance of the exercise and are more interested in the value of the learning experience itself. In particular, the ability to practice what they expect to learn.

The Learning Styles Myth and the Case for Engagement

As the excellent infographic here explains new research seriously questions the validity of designing courses or lessons which target individual’s preferred learning styles. In truth, there is little evidence which supports the view that such designs improve the learner’s experience or that they are more effective.

 

For practitioners this knowledge will be met with an audible sigh of relief. Mostly because the practicality of designing a short intervention which accommodates multiple learning styles whilst engaging the majority of learners is both contradictory and incongruous, if not impossible. At the heart of the theory is the suggestion that learners are more engaged (and thus inversely disengaged) when their preferred learning style is being met. Using graphs, images and video will engage the visual learners in a group but most likely at the expense of kinesthetic learners who would rather be doing something practical. You can see the problem straight off. Add to the mix the truly incompatible interpersonal and intrapersonal preferences and the chances of pleasing everybody slide to zero.

 

What I’ve personally always disliked about the theory is that there is an implicit assumption that everyone cannot be engaged at the same time to the same degree. Whilst this is logical it’s also incompatible with my experience, and I’m sure that of most people. For proof, think of any performance which enraptured an entire audience you were part of. Perhaps you start to think about the Arts or a TED talk, or even a meeting in work. Or what about during a team-based simulation?

 

Every tutor has experienced the moment when they know they have the majority of a class spell-bound only to notice the two individuals having their own conversation or sending a text. It’s accepted as a common trait of human nature. That our attention flits between subject matter and that commanding the unadulterated focus of an entire audience is one the greatest challenges most of us will encounter. For me that all changed when I began delivering business simulations. I remember being almost dumbstruck that an audience of 90 individuals could be so immersed and engaged in a  learning task that there was literally not one person remote from the experience. They were all in.

 

Now, since these 90 individuals were Masters level students in a University with tremendous international links they came from across the globe where, no doubt, the learning methodologies they had experienced would encompass enormous variety. Yet here they were. United in a single purpose with a level of engagement and energy which actually gained in ferocity the closer we came to the simulation’s denouement, when a winner would be crowned. It wasn’t a surprise when they lined up to tell me how amazing a learning experience it had been.

 

Simulations cannot be easily confined to the toolbox of learning style approaches. They are at once Aural, Visual and Kinesthetic. They require Interpersonal and Intrapersonal approaches, as well as Verbal and (frequently) Mathematical skillsets. Which sounds like there is an argument to be made that simulations offer such a rich learning experience simply because they cater to all preferred learning styles. But I doubt it. Rather, I’d make the case that it is their astonishing ability to immerse learners in a believable world where engagement levels can soar. Where meaning is brought to the activity. Meaning and Engagement. If you have those then you have the only ingredients you need for powerful learning.

 

As a final thought, consider a parallel with the world of gaming: it is inconceivable that the number of people playing video or mobile games regularly have similar learning styles or that they will like one form of game over another exclusively. The ubiquity of games such as Candy Crush, Farmville, Temple Run and Angry Birds proves this beyond doubt. Why is GTA the world’s most successful entertainment product, bigger than any album or film? The games are so popular because of the gameplay and the quality of the experience. They are immersive, each in very different ways. Gaming in its broadest sense, from physical sports to mobile apps, are incomparable as a method of engagement. We are hard-wired to respond to gameplay that is well-designed.

In the business world and business training how do you train for an activity without the ability to perform it without risk? If we want people to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and innovation, for instance, how do we cultivate that without damaging the business? Do you work on the balance of Slide Deck delivery to video to group debate? No. We place them in a simulated world which engages their senses fully. Which challenges their preconceptions and explicitly links action to consequence. We provide the Meaning and the Engagement, and then we watch them soar.

 

If Robots Can Be Managers What About Avatars?

In an article by Young and Cormier for HBR this month they describe an experiment which found humans would follow instructions from a robot even beyond the point where they wanted to continue with a task (http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/04/can-robots-be-managers-too/). In a twist from the classic Milgram experiment a 53cm tall robot was competing with a 27yr old human to see who could convince participants to stick longer with a mundane task. The results? 86% to 46% for the human in the lab coat

That may seem like a significant difference until you consider the reality of the result. Under controlled conditions people responded to a robot as though it were in a position of authority and control. Nearly half of the participants were compelled to go through four levels of prompting to keep them on task when they had already expressed a desire to leave. That is simply incredible.

What is most exciting is the author’s insistence that the greatest applications for ‘social robots’, such as the one used in the experiment, is not the mundane and repetitive work we know humans dislike intensely  (with obvious implications for productivity) but those which can truly  leverage the power of a technology with perfect memory, internet connectivity and high-powered CPUs for data analysis. As they rightly point out Robots could therefore be the ideal companion on  projects or be an invaluable asset when making decisions at any level of the business operation.

Yet, when a colleague at VirBELA (www.virbela.com) wondered whether an Avatar in a virtual world could have the same impact, well, that really got me thinking. Increasingly, we can envisage organisations moving beyond the use of virtual worlds like VirBELA for training and virtual team development and on to establishing a presence for team collaboration and project management. Imagine then the power of an avatar who is ever present during meetings and can offer instant access to information both internal and external to the company. An avatar who manages schedules and reminds individuals of tasks and upcoming deadlines. An assistant who is never wrong.

Then imagine the value of their defining characteristic: they are not human. In the workplace, it is the impact of personality which is frequently the bottleneck. The politics and trade-offs that exist in any organisation as individuals strive to give meaning to their work and be recognised for their own merits. In many cases, it can be the management of relationships which defines success or failure, regardless of external market conditions, competitors, demand cycles and so forth.

Perhaps social robots offer an exciting glimpse into the future for both the physical and virtual worlds. Where the convergence of BIg Data and technology results in companions who can provide the results of large-scale analytics and data mining within our very teams. That, and making sure you’re on time for your next meeting. A Brave New World indeed.