Serendipity and Learning

Caution: Amateur post Recently, we started playing 'Threes'. And while Clash of Clans was a favourite, interest on it is waning - though it is still in demand. Subway Surfers has long since been forgotten. For a short while Tiny Troopers ruled the roost. Some of the drawing and sketching apps are still in demand - but they are not addictive. And yes, for a while, we did play Dragon box. First phase, you heard about the app and there is immense curiosity. You want to know the mechanics and you want to get the better of it. This is also the learning phase. With most good apps, this would last a few minutes. If it is boring or 'not good enough' most likely, the interest level drops here itself. Flappy bird did not cross this phase - it was too difficult. If the interest level is good, one continues. Next phase, is to work through the challenges of the app. Here the experience of the app begins. As you cross the first few levels, life is good and one begins to enjoy

  This is a snapshot from the little ones text book on 'Computers'.  Now, computers does not mean that they learn programming. They are learning, of all things, MS Word. And they are learning the theory of MS Word (if there ever can be such a thing) and then working on some lab exercises.  Now, my take on this is that, it is practically useless. There are concepts one needs to know - and these concepts like indenting text and column breaks are supposed to be learnt when it is to be used. I really do not see the point making children learn by rote such concepts like indenting and then trying to explain it in theory. MS Word will be used by these kids in a few years from now, when they create project documents or something like that. And at that point, they will learn it. There is no dying need for children in class 4 to learn MS Word. Sure, they can play around with computers - and playing around DOES NOT mean Excel and Powerpoint (isnt that what people do in workplace

What is the motivation for someone to play a game? How to create a cool new game that everybody wants to play? How to create stickiness for an event? How to build a bridge so that the audience in an event takes away something meaningful? How to change a team culture? Why does an organization need vendor co-ordinators? [Alert: Coordination is not a skill!] How to create a course that delivers what it promises! Hoping to find creative solutions to every one of these questions and many other questions!

Gamification is the new Social Media. Which in turn was the new Web2.0. Which in turn was the new Black.  Everybody wants to be Apple - but well, you cannot. Thus it is that everybody wants a piece of the latest buzzword. So, today it is gamification. Now gamification is not about overlaying badges and trophies on an elearning. It is clearly much more than that. But more often than not, this fake gamification is used an excuse to beautify otherwise pathetic content. Gamification has to be inbuilt into the experience, it is not a separate piece that stands out like a bad comedy track in the movies. And real gamification is hard work - it means looking at the content and literally constructing a game out of it - that means competition, levels, hidden alleys, wild cards and a tough algorithm - among other things. And by the way, some randomness and unpredictability as well. Read the wiki page and find out if your 'gamifying' idea can hold its own against the many mention

Years ago, I was at a training class. This training was on martial arts. There was one person who taught us a bunch of things each class and then moved on to a different set of things each class and thus it went. Class after class, we were taught a set of things - seemingly connected - but for us, it did not make sense. We learnt technique after technique and promptly forgot technique after technique - because there was nothing to keep those techniques internlinked - no framework - nothing. No way to recap. Nothing to take away. No multiple repetition. No structure. And then I had the opportunity to be coached by a different person. Now this person was an expert -  actually there were two of them. They taught from the start. Basics. Repeat. Steps. And then week by week they increased the complexity till we got one step right.  And as we progressed, we also learnt techniques. Which one do you think is more amenable to be learnt by students? The latter, quite obviously. A process or