The materials in this newsletter are copyright 2005 by The Thiagi Group. However, they may be freely reproduced for educational/training activities. There is no need to obtain special permission for such use as long as you do not reproduce more than 100 copies per year. Please include the following statement on all reproductions:
For any other use of the content, please contact us (
All registered subscribers receive Play For Performance free of charge.
However, to prevent us from becoming bankrupt, we have decided to adopt a Busker Protocol. If you like what you read, if you find it useful, and if you'd like us to continue publishing the newsletter, please feel free to chip in with any financial contribution. Our estimated annual cost for this newsletter is $30,000. So we suggest an annual contribution of $30 (which is less than one-third the subscription cost of Thiagi's earlier paper-based newsletter). We would appreciate any amount that you send us, but make sure it is less than $30,000 (since we don't want to make a profit). You can mail your check to Thiagi, 4423 East Trailridge Road, Bloomington, IN 47408 or call us at (812) 332-1478 to charge the amount to a credit card. Or you can charge your credit card online, through The Thiagi Group, Inc. Please let us know if you need an invoice for financial record keeping.
Thiagi believes in practicing what he preaches. This is an
interactive newsletter, so interact already! Send us your
feedback, sarcastic remarks, and gratuitous advice through email
to
This column features interviews with outstanding designers and users of interactive experiential activities. Earlier this year, I met my longtime role model Dennis Meadows at the 2004 ISAGA Conference in Munich and invited him to appear as a guest gamer.
After 35 years as a professor and institute director in three US
universities, Dennis Meadows retired from academia to focus full time on
simulation modeling and game design. His specialty is computer simulation.
The second of his ten books,
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.Don't fall into the trap of defining each new opportunity for a game as one that just happens to need the exercise you have already mastered. Last of all, keep it simple! There is a tendency to try and stuff more and more detail into a game. I like the simple exercises that serve as metaphors or frames and that let the participants draw on their own insights and knowledge for playing and debriefing the exercise.
In using a game, I like Dick Duke's Rule of 10.
One has
to use a game at least 10 times before you really understand it.
That is profoundly true, but note that I am still learning from
and adapting games that I have run over 100 times.
In getting acceptance for the use of games, respect the time commitments and the risks that your participants assume when they enter into one of your games. Make sure the exercise will be useful. Be clear with them about what they will do and why. As a desperate last resort, you can always mention some peer group of your present participants that has played and benefited from the game you are about to run.
Hateis a strong word. I wouldn't use it to describe my feelings. I greatly disrespect a facilitator who puts her or his own needs above those of the participants. I don't appreciate lazy facilitators who do what is easy instead of what will work.
Video and other recreational games are already an enormous commercial success. The good news is that they open up people to playing games for other goals. The bad news is that they bias expectations about games in ways that are not conducive to learning complex new knowledge, for example they rely extensively on vicarious violence.
Training is slowly migrating to the Internet. The games I like require face-to-face interaction and time enough to make mistakes, reflect, discuss, ponder, and experiment. The Internet makes all that more difficult. But when you create a game that can be used over the web, you now have massively large audiences for it.
The number of trainers and academics who recognize the didactic value of games is rising. You see this in the rise of attendance at the ISAGA meetings. But growing numbers means that it is harder to sustain high ethical, literary, and technical standards among members of the profession.
The Internet has enormously simplified the process of finding and acquiring relevant games. Also new computer software for graphics, text editing, and simulation have made it much more efficient to create the materials for a game. Given these conflicting trends, I really don't know what way the field will move. I think those with real expertise in game design and use will see growing demand for their skills. I certainly see that in my own work.
I can predict my own future. I will spend the next decade creating a variety of complex, computer assisted role-playing games about many different social issues. And I am going to have a great deal of fun doing it.
In the 1980s I created
To run the game you need one medium-sized bowl, a whistle or bell, and 150 - 200 pieces of candy.
The game may be run for groups of from 3 to 15.
Here is a bowl with 50 pieces of candy in it.
In just a moment I will blow my whistle to start the first round. Then all of you will have 5 seconds to take from the bowl as many pieces of candy as you wish to or are able to grab.
After 5 seconds I will blow my whistle again, and you must stop.
After you stop, I will count how many pieces of candy are left in the bowl, and I will double them or bring the total up to 50, whichever requires fewer pieces of candy. So, for example, if you left 35 pieces in the bowl, I would add 15, making the total for the next round 50. If you left 20 pieces in the bowl, I would add 20.
After I have added the required number of pieces of candy, I'll give you a few moments to consider your strategy, and then I'll blow the whistle again to start the second round. In that round each of you will once again have 5 seconds to take as many pieces as you wish to or are able to grab.
After 5 seconds, I'll stop the round, count the candy, add the necessary pieces, and give you few moments to consider your strategy. Then I'll blow the whistle for the third round.
We will continue in this way for several cycles.
Your goal is to get as much candy for yourself as you can.
I usually try to blow the whistle for the first round before
they have a chance to talk about a common strategy. But after
that, if they ask about the possibility of talking together, I
say they should do whatever they feel will let them maximize the
amount of candy they can get. If they ask how many rounds will
be played, just say, We'll do this for awhile, until I decide
to stop.
One key issue in the game is the choice between collaboration and competition. Collaboration requires joint decision making, coordination, and trust. It is useful to get the participants to share their thoughts, observations, and strategies on this choice and to discuss where and how this choice confronts them in real life.
The game introduces a concept analogous to Maximum
Sustainable Yield
in a renewable resource system. If the
participants take the candy to zero, you do not add any more for
the subsequent rounds. But blow the whistle anyway for several
more rounds, so they can experience intensely the frustration of
going to an empty bowl. If they do not take any candy, leaving
it at 50, you also do not add any. By taking enough candy in
each round that the bowl is left with 25 pieces, the
participants can maximize the amount that you must add each
round.
Of course, over the long term, they cannot take out on a
sustainable basis more than you put in. You can draw a graph to
make this clearer. On the horizontal axis is Number of pieces
at the end of the round
ranging from 0 to 50. On the
vertical axis is Number of pieces added
ranging from 0 to
25. The data curve has the shape of a equilateral triangle with
its peak at the point (25,25). Engage them in discussions about
where this kind of regeneration confronts them in real life. The
relation to fisheries, forests, and ground water is obvious. The
game also makes points about softer resources, like faith in
government.
Last month, Roger Greenaway introduced seven strategies for encouraging participation in debriefing (investigate, facilitate, clarify, demonstrate, change, consult, and inspire) and explored the first strategy in detail. This month he explores the next two strategies in greater detail.
Use tasks. If participants like doing tasks but not debriefing discussions, then set up debriefing sessions as production tasks for groups to carry out independently (examples: creating cartoons, maps, graphs, collages, songs, or news reports about what they have done). This may not take participants all the way around the learning cycle, but high levels of participation are likely both during and after such tasks.
Ask direct questions. Give some warning to the quieter people so that they have time to prepare a response.
Give people questions to think about. Give out questionnaires to help individuals (or pairs) to think things through in preparation for a group review. Questions can be the same for everyone, or can be personalized, or random. They can also be self-selected from a list of questions generated by the group.
Give people time to think. In a guided-reflection activity, people lie down while you talk through the events and prompt their thoughts with questions (which they answer silently inside their heads). After 5 to 10 minutes finish the activity by focusing people's thoughts on what they will say to the group (or to individuals in the group) (example: thanks, appreciates, apologies, regrets, or congratulations).
Encourage alternative ways of communicating. Encourage the use of pictures and objects as visual aids to help people to focus and express their thoughts and feelings. Visual aids are also useful props for those who lack confidence.
Create a climate in which it is easier for everyone to
contribute. Some ground rules may help you achieve this. Try to
get rules expressed positively as DOs rather than as DON'Ts. If rules
sounds too much like school, find a more positive (and accurate) title
such as Mutual Expectations
or What we expect from each
other
or How we can encourage each other
.
Use a body image. To encourage everyone to contribute
to this process of clarifying expectations, place a big sheet of paper on
the floor
Clarify personal objectives. Understanding people's motivation towards the course as a whole will help you (and them) to see where debriefing fits in. Will debriefing help them establish or clarify objectives, or help them achieve their objectives, or both? Rather than coming up with a standard explanation of why debriefing is important, you can explain how debriefing (of a particular kind) can help them achieve their particular objectives.
Next month, Roger will explore two other strategies for encouraging participation in debriefing. If you are in a hurry, you can read about all the strategies (and much more) by visiting http://reviewing.co.uk/ .
Do you remember that the negative of a negative is a positive
from your algebra classes? We use this principle in the
To brainstorm a set of strategies for achieving a goal.
1 to 30
10 to 30 minutes, depending on your goal and the number of participants.
If you have 2 to 7 participants, ask them to work as a single team. With more participants, divide them into 2 to 5 teams, each with four or six members. It does not matter if some teams have an extra member.
Note: These instructions are for an individual. If you are working with teams, make suitable modifications.
Specify your goals. Write down one or more goals related to the problem or to the opportunity. Select a goal for further exploration.
Here's a sample goal: Workshop participants should return on time after a coffee break.
Write the laog. A laog (pronounced lay-augh) is the exact opposite of the goal. In most cases, you can create the laog by replacing the verb in your goal with its antonym.
Here's the laog: Workshop participants should not return on time after a coffee break.
Brainstorm strategies for achieving the laog. Ignore your original goal. Write down a list of ideas for achieving the laog.
Here are different ideas for ensuring that the workshop participants will not return on time after a coffee break:
Reverse each strategy. Write the opposite of the strategy for achieving the laog.
Here is an example:
Strategy: Make the early participants wait for the latecomers.
Reversal: Get started on time. Don't wait for the latecomers.
Try to reverse all your strategies. However, if any of them appear to be irrelevant, ignore them.
Sometimes you may reverse a strategy in more than one way. Here's an example of a strategy being reversed two different ways:
Strategy: Punish the early participants.
Reversal 1: Reward the early participants.
Reversal 2: Punish the latecomers.
Edit your list of reversals. When you reverse your strategies for achieving your laog, you end up with strategies for achieving your goal. Examine each strategy and rewrite it to make it more specific and practical.
Here's an example:
Original strategy: Punish the latecomers.
Edited strategy: Ask each latecomer to sing a song.
Expand your list. Your edited list of strategies may suggest additional ones. Keep adding strategies to the list.
Repeat the process with other goal statements. If you have more goal statements, select another one, state its laog, write strategies for achieving this laog, and reverse them into strategies for achieving the goal.
We have added one more game to our collection of web game shells.
You can play this game right now.
This SPLATTER game tests your knowledge of Multiple Intelligences. In the game, the screen displays a 3 x 4 table with different types of intelligences (example: kinesthetic) and characteristics of each (example: career choice).
The table contains 12 entries. Several of these entries are
incorrect
If you click on a correct entry, the arm will still throw the tomato. But
the tomato will bounce off
Remember, your goal is to splatter tomatoes at incorrect entries.
As with all our web games, you can play this game repeatedly. Every time
you play the game, you will get different arrangements of rows and
columns
Also, you can play the game at three levels of difficulty. Level 1 gives you plenty of time to find the incorrect entries. Level 3 requires you to work faster because you have a tight time limit.
Web Games Shells are animated online games. We have a software program that enables you to create five different types of web games. You don't have to be a computer programmer to create these games. Just type the items (questions and answers or statements to be classified) on a template and click a couple of buttons. Your game is ready to play. You can play the game at your computer or upload it to your web site.
You can play different sample web games and read the Game Design Manuals and Instructional Design Tips by visiting the Web Game Shells area of our website.
While the games are effective and exciting by themselves, we blend them
in our online learning approach called the Four-Door Approach to
Elearning. You can take our free online course to learn (and
experience) how to use the library, the playground, the café, and
the torture chamber to provide effective and engaging online learning. To
do this, visit
For more information about purchasing and using the Web Game Shells software, call Matt (415-385-7248) or Raja (812-332-1478).
Performance testing is a guaranteed investment.
All our training design activities are centered on performance tests that involve simulations that authentically reflect real-world situations. Here are some examples:
customersat the call center. These telephone calls are from improv actors who are provided with a variety of questions, personality types, and accents. The telephone call is recorded and evaluated with an objective checklist.
It costs significant amounts of time and money to design, administer, and score these performance tests. We can save money and time by adopting either of these cheaper alternatives:
Do we really save money by skipping testing or by using easy-to-design and easy-to-score tests? Let's answer this question by recalling two basic principles:
Given these basic principles, we can think of performance testing as an investment. The time and money we spend on designing and administering better tests gives valuable returns in terms of effective learning and profitable application.