The References

The following were referenced in designing and creating the game 'Hired or Fired?'.

Prensky, M. (2002). The motivation of gameplay; The real twenty-first century learning revolution, On the Horizon, 10 (1), 5-11, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1074-8121.htm

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. (, Eds.) Special Education Technology (Vol. 16, p. 0). Prentice Hall, http://www.mendeley.com/research/learning-with-technology-a-constructivist-perspective 

Mayer, R. (1998). A split attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory, Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 312 - 320, DOI: 0022-0663/98

Mayer, R., Moreno, R (2003) Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning, Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6

Biggs, J. (2003) Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press

Bruner, J. (1996) The culture of education, Edition2, Publisher Harvard University Press, ISBN 0674179536

Iiyoshi, T., Hannafin, M., Wang, F. (2005) Cognitive tools and student-centred learning: rethinking tools, functions and applications, Educational Media International, 42(4), 281-296, http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/deliver/connect/routledg/09523987/v42n4/s2.pdf?expires=1306501112&id=62933038&titleid=749&accname=Monash+University&checksum=7F99EDE4ABD98F5B8955E8EADF3964DB

Henderson, M. & Henderson, L. (2006). Content Design for Online Learning. QUICK: Journal of the Queensland Society for Information Technology in Education, 99(Winter), 3-8.

Images captured from ToonDoo

http://www.toondoo.com/

The Flaws

In designing and creating the many aspects of 'Hired or Fired?', as I progressed further with the development of  the project, many flaws became apparent.

For ease, I have split these flaws into 2 sections:

Flaws in the design due to neglected inclusion of certain elements: 

• The game is impeccably autonomous
• There is no collaboration with others nor group work included 
• No community of practice

Flaws in the chosen deployment:

• PowerPoint has limited design options
• Limited animation capabilities and execution of the output is not perfect
• Some images, text and animations, just simply won't go where you want them to

However on the flip side, where this is identified flaw, there is identified improvement and new development.

And perhaps, akin to adult education and even, learning itself, the real flaw in the design of this project was to initially consider it static; whereas a consideration of it to be forever evolving may have been more fitting...

The Result

Note: What will be presented here is not the finished product. Essentially, it is only the design concept, however there are 2 working elements of the prototype.
 
In designing 'Hired or Fired?' it was decided that the critical elements of:

• The content

(the four key job ready outcome areas) 

• The learning activities

(the activities are the units)

• The learning supports

(the inclusion of the always present menu options)

were the key areas Herrington, 2001) that would assist the learner in maximizing their opportunity to learn throughout their participation in the game.  As a result, each of these elements was given the most focus and effort.

This focus resulted in specific design decisions being made as displayed within the following slide image examples.

Slide Image 1

• Use of simple, easy to use predictable structures in the navigation tools to reduce student cognitive load and thereby give them more 'thinking space' for the task at hand (Herrington, 2001)

It is paradoxical that the very e-learning systems and methods designed to unshackle the learner from traditional teaching methods involve such extraordinary cognitive demands which subsequently result in their use by the learners being seriously compromised. To enable a shift of the pedagogical control to the individual requires more than basic procedural assistance. Rather, it involves the deployment of consistent, strategic uses of tools that scaffold the efforts of the learners (Iiyoshi, T., Hannafin, M., Wang, F. 2005). The use of such tools is demonstrated in the above image’s side navigation panel. This panel is consistent across all screens of the game and requires only 1 click to activate each of the options. Additionally, options within the menu are kept to a minimum for ease of learner use, understanding and reading.

Slide Image 2

• Creating interactive, choice based activities that allow the students to make frequent, meaningful decisions and be in control of what they choose to be shown/tackle next

The user controls the frequency and continuation of the game by making frequent choices either by clicking on the ‘ok’ buttons or being asked to make a selection from the multitude of scaffolded topic choices.  By asking the learner to take action rather than just have an automated movement process to the next section, I am:

•  Empowering the individual to be in control of their learning

•  Allowing time for cognition of the new information

•  Creating interaction (be it ever so minimal at this stage) between the screen and the learner 

• Applying PARC principles to all user interface/screen design

Within each of the screens, PARC principles have been applied as follows:

Proximity of headings to content is aided by shading and borders; hence alleviating confusion about the relationship of text. Any bulleted lists (as demonstrated on other slides) are clear proximal to subheadings.  And lastly, ample use of white space (or, in this instance, black space) is utilized.

Alignment of images and text is used effectively. All headings and content are clearly and precisely aligned, hence there is no confusion and no time lost by the learner when interpreting the information. Alignment is aided by white borders and shading of objects.

Repetition is also used. The headings are not only indicated by a repeated alignment but also the choice of font, color and size. The text and format is repeated throughout each of the slides, allowing the reader to quickly digest the content.  Bullet points are recognizably subordinate to the leading heading or sentence, therefore the learner can either quickly skim the content or evaluate whether it is worth reading or not at all.

Contrast in font size, font colors in proximity to the background with additionally shape border shading, helps in the identification of headings and content. 

• Presenting information in semantic chunks for readability and understanding (Henderson, 2006) as indicated in the following slide images

Any blocks of text that are presented to the learner throughout the game are deliberately chunked (Henderson, 2006) to assist learners in constructing and facilitating meaning from the information presented. This method provides a scaffold for learners in conjunction with the applied PARC principles. 

See a section of 'Hired or Fired?' in action - click here!

Slide Image 3

• Including interactive game play into in the prescribed activities (Prensky, 2002)

Rather than asking the learner to answer boring questions about what would be the right or wrong type of clothing to wear to an interview, I instead chose for the content to be taught in an interactive, game-like, activity-based approach rather than a more academic, decontextualized text-based approach. Furthermore, the interface reflects real-life contexts and authentic settings wherever possible; for example in the above slide, the learner literally selects and places onto the avatar the appropriate clothing for an interview. This activity (albeit utilizing a cartoon character) is not dissimilar to an actual real life activity of walking into one’s own wardrobe and selecting and putting on clothing.

• Use of a combination of dynamic (animated) and static, simplistic pictures rather than realistic images such as photographs to reduce extraneous cognitive load (Mayer, 1998, 2003)  and to assist weaker readers in constructing sense of the text and context of the topic

By choosing to utilize animated, simplistic images, rather than realistic images such as photographs, I have attempted to reduce the extraneous cognitive load on the learners, enabling the learner to draw linkages between the image and the text based content quickly and easily without being distracted by the complexities of a real life image.  In addition, by utilizing simplistic images in conjunction with the PARC principles, namely, proximity, extraneous cognitive load is again reduced, enabling the student to focus more on the content meaning rather than the imagery. 

See another section of 'Hired or Fired?' in action - click here!

And this is only the beginning...

The Reason

We have reached a point in the uptake of technology within adult learning in which the notion of quality is emerging as a perpetual predicament and subsequently, the learning outcomes from these methods of teaching are being questioned. With the plethora of available online courses nowadays, questions such as:

• Is online teaching as effective as face-to-face instruction?
• Are online courses as good as they could be?
• What is the best way to deliver online courses?

are rightfully being asked by educators and learners alike (A. Herrington, J. Herrington, R. Oliver, S. Stoney, J. Willis, 2001).

There have been many studies and subsequent developed theories on what ascribes to be considered effective learning; in particular, game-based learning (Prensky, 2002, Gee, 2005), constructivist learning (Bruner, 1966, Jonassen, 1999), cognitive load (Mayer, 1998, 2003), and constructive alignment (Biggs, 2003) to name just a few; with many of these transcending to include perceived effectiveness within online learning environments also.

Nonetheless, despite all of this knowledge being readily available to online course developers, there continues to be an influx of perpetual iterative didactic, text-book-on-a-screen page turners being mass produced and paraded as the future of education; all under the guise of the touted term e-learning…

But this is where ‘Hired or Fired?’ aims to be different!

With the intention of incorporating aspects from several established learning theories, ‘Hired or Fired?’ aspires to increase learner engagement and idyllically result in learning by:

• Including interactive game play into in the prescribed activities (Prensky, 2002)
• Presenting information in semantic chunks for readability and understanding (Henderson, 2006)
• Applying PARC principles to all user interface/screen design
• Use of a combination of dynamic (animated) and static, simplistic pictures rather than realistic images such as photographs to reduce extraneous cognitive load (Mayer, 1998, 2003) and to assist weaker readers in constructing sense of the text and context of the topic
• Use of simple, easy to use predictable structures in the navigation tools to reduce student cognitive load and thereby give them more 'thinking space' for the task at hand (Herrington, 2001)
• Creating interactive, choice based activities that allow the students to make frequent, meaningful decisions and be in control of what they choose to be shown/tackle next

‘Aw, that will be easy!’ you may say?

We’ll see…

The Concept

Job Services Australia (JSA) providers contracted by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), already run in-house training sessions to assist unemployed adults in maintaining their employability skills and knowledge to remain competitive within the current labor market.

Whilst idyllically, every person who walks through a JSA’s doors would be eligible to participate in this necessary training free of charge, unfortunately with the current budgetary constraints enforced by a rigid Federal governed contract, this is not always the case. 

Henceforth, the notion of utilizing technologies; perhaps such as PowerPoint and online hosting, to create a low cost, high volume usage e-training solution was explored. As a result, the following concept for the game ‘Hired or Fired?’ was created.

The Game

‘Hired or Fired?’ is an online hosted, e-training game that aims to assist unemployed adults in updating and maintaining their employability skills and knowledge to remain competitive and employable in the constant evolving labor market.

Consisting of 4 key employability knowledge and skill areas:

• Resume Know How
• Interview Skills
• Personal Presentation
• Finding Jobs

the game consists of a series of individual interactive activities; each activity taking the learner no more than 5 minutes to complete.

As each activity is completed, the learner will accumulate points which tally up to become their employability score. 

Recognizing that adult learners come into the e-training with previous knowledge and skills, not all activities are required to be completed by the learner to successfully complete the game and build up their employability score.

 

The activities required for successful completion of the game are determined by an in-game, simple quiz that assesses the currency of the learner’s prior skills and knowledge and awards employability points for these without the need to complete the activities. 

The overall aim of the game is to achieve the highest employability score possible, as the higher the score, the more employable you appear; and the closer you are to being hired!

The Assumption

Knowing how to get a job, and then, how to keep a job, is something which is often taken for granted. 

We often assume that as adults, whom have presumably endured some sort of formal schooling throughout our youthful days, we automatically possess the necessary skills and knowledge required to be considered employable.  We know what to put into a resume; we know what to wear (or what not to wear) to an interview; and we encompass the necessary skills and knowledge required to successfully seek out and obtain whatever type of employment it is that we’re after.  After all, they showed us in school and after that, it is assumed common adult knowledge, right?

Wrong!

With industries constantly changing and subsequently the nature of work constantly evolving, the skills and knowledge that we were taught back at school which constituted us as employable – even if it was just 5 or so years ago – may now be considered out-of-date by employers within the current labor market.
 

Furthermore, like any learnt knowledge or skill, if it hasn’t been put to practice for quite some time, aspects get forgotten.  Couple these missing pieces with technology evolution and subsequent changes to industries and business practices; is this still something we could reasonably assume to be common adult knowledge? 

Do resumes always look the same and contain the same type of information throughout the years?

Do cover letters still need to be indented at the start of every paragraph and hand written like they were 10 years ago?

And, is it still acceptable to simply walk in to a workplace off the street, ask for a job and expect to be working there the next day? 

The answer to these questions and the many others that adults looking for work these days may face is simply, no! 

Much like the evolution of our primary industries which ensure maintained competitiveness within a volatile market; as adults competing for sustainable, secure employment, in a constant changing labor market, we too need to continue to evolve and maintain our skills and knowledge to remain competitive and essentially employable. 

Now that is common knowledge! 

The Conundrum

Getting a job is like winning Tattslotto.  Sometimes you're lucky, sometimes you're not. 

Plus, its a case of being in the right place at the right time. 

And, of course, you need to know someone, who knows someone who works there; naturally! 

Or... is there something else going on here that not all of us have cottoned on to yet?