Google Ad #1 - desktop - 728x90

Google Ad #3 - desktop - 728x90

Google Ad #1 - mobile - 300x200

Google Ad #3 - mobile - 300x200

ATD_Half_Page

Googel Ad #1 - Side Bar - Content pages

ATD Footer Logo

Carrie Wiser designs authentic, engaging learning experiences that help people get better at what they need to do. From full training strategies to microlearning moments, her goal is to demystify the learning process. She strives to create meaningful connections that improve confidence, understanding, and performance. Carrie draws on over 20 years of experience in a variety of industries including Fortune 500 corporations, small businesses, federal and nonprofit organizations, and higher education.

Carrie Wiser

Richard H. Thaler, a behavioral economist, and Cass R. Sunstein, a legal scholar, explained that despite our best intentions, we do not always make the best choices. We tend to rely on habits or biases or take the easy path. Nudges can push us in a certain direction or remind us of things we have forgotten to do.Instructional designers can apply elements of nudge theory to increase engagement in learning activities. The way that you curate the learning environment, notify and remind your audience about learning opportunities, and motivate them to stay engaged can influence what and how they learn. Getting Started First, conduct a training needs analysis. In addition to outlining the curriculum itself, consider what is necessary or timely versus what you will need to remind people about over time. Nudges can be very useful when you want to engage learners before or after a formal training session.Next, consider your target audience. Who is more likely to respond to different types of nudges, and how many nudges will it take to engage them? You can look at analytics for overall engagement trends. Find out what people are interested in, how they like to engage, and what drives their choices. Keep in mind that nudges promote, but do not guarantee, certain types of behavior, so do not expect a 100 percent response rate. Instead, set goals to motivate more people than you would have otherwise. Gamifying Your ApproachGamification, or applying game-based elements to learning activities, can improve the effectiveness of your nudges. Points, badges, leaderboards, and rewards provide additional incentives to engage. Here are some of the ways gamification can help: 1. Make it easy to participate. When you're trying to nudge people toward training, you can “cut through the noise” by lowering the barriers to entry. Present your content in a fun, user-friendly way and make it easy for players to play. For example, use a gamification platform like Arcades™ to curate and create a fun space for playing learning games. Then send notifications whenever new games are added and set up single sign-on (SSO) to make it easier for players to log in. 2. Set social norms. People often make decisions based on what they see other people doing. So, nudge learners by showing them how other people engage with your learning games. For example, leaderboards drive competition, but they also show how many other people are participating. Recurring events like weekly, monthly, or “Beat the Boss” challenges nudge people to engage regularly in your training program. 3. Remind people to learn. Whether people are busy, distracted, or procrastinating, they will forget things. Games offer rich analytics that will help you track engagement and set up well-timed nudges. For example, if you see that people are more likely to play learning games on Friday afternoon, send out a nudge on Friday at lunchtime. To make nudges more effective, keep the messages short, 70 words or less, send them at reasonable intervals, and only send them to the people who will directly benefit from the training event. 4. Support goalsetting. Gamification nudges people to set goals and incentivizes goal-related behavior. For example, you can award badges for playing a certain number of games or extra points to players who complete the training within a specific period. 5. Keep it simple. Learners are less likely to respond to nudges when their training is complex, monotonous, or difficult to navigate. But well-designed games grab attention and provide a fun and engaging learning experience. Not only are short games more likely to drive engagement, they also force you to reduce complexity and focus on what content or skills are most important. The next time you construct a learning experience, consider when and how to give people a nudge. Then use gamification to support a culture of fun and continuous learning that can improve engagement and performance. Interested in learning how to create innovative, interactive e-learning content? ATD’s Articulate Storyline Certificate will show you how to use this powerful tool.

How to Leverage Nudge Theory and Gamification to Motivate Your Learners to Train

Games provide meaningful, self-motivated, repeated engagement in your spaced learning curriculum. This post will cover how games and gamification after a training session can boost motivation and engagement in after-course activities.

How to Use Games Post Training to Assess, Engage, and Make the Content Sticky

Procrastination is probably on most managers’ “Seven Deadly Sins” lists. But don’t be too quick to assign the moniker of “procrastinator.” According to personality type theory, as described by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) instrument, certain work style and cognitive preferences, which look an awful lot like procrastination on the surface, indicate anything but laziness.The MBTI instrument categorizes personality type along four categories, including Judging/Perceiving, which describes how people make decisions. Those with preferences for Judging (J)—whose work style dominates the corporate world currently—tend to make decisions quickly, and work more efficiently and are more energized at the beginning of a project. Conversely, those who prefer Perceiving (P) tend to make decisions later, and work more efficiently and are more energized toward the end of a project. It’s easy to see how an outsider, who can’t see what’s going on “under the hood,” might easily dismiss this tendency as procrastination, which usually entails delaying something because you simply don’t want to deal with it. However, for someone with a preference for Perceiving, quite the opposite is occurring. Instead, these workers are likely taking more time to gather all the information possible in order to make the most-informed decision. While those preferring J feel unsettled waiting to commit to a course of action and like to do it early on, those preferring P feel unsettled if they close off options before they’ve fully vetted them. Both approaches are valid and offer unique benefits. But it doesn’t take much vision to understand why—in a business climate riddled with the consequences of rushed decisions—the P approach might provide balance to an “I need it yesterday” culture. Yet, this particular cognitive and behavioral orientation, while common in the population at large, is marginalized in business, education, and society—often from childhood. **You’re a Slacker, and So Was Your Old Man!(No McFly Will Amount to Anything!)** From early in life, those with a preference for P receive messages that negate the value of their natural approach—and praise when they make more immediate decisions. This carries on into college, where you’re expected to choose a major before you even crack open a textbook (never mind that many of tomorrow’s most critical jobs probably don’t even exist yet). In fact, you could say that P preferences are programmed to self-identify as procrastinators and, as a result, learn to fake the J approach to school and work. How many times have you heard someone joke about the fact that they procrastinate, but can’t help it because they work better at the last minute? If that person is successful, chances are low that they truly procrastinate. More likely, they prefer P but have stereotyped themselves, because of a negative perception of what a preference for Perceiving really entails. In organizations, we don’t like when people delay making decisions. It’s unnerving because the merits of this work style are not understood in our J-biased corporate work culture—and we can’t necessarily discern what’s going on inside a person’s head. We can’t see that they’re actually gathering facts and weighing options; we don’t know that this process is so important to them that they’re willing to take all of the time that they possibly can before committing to a course of action. Efficiency Kicks in at the Project’s End As the deadline approaches, however, P preferences will quickly commit to a course of action and become efficiency machines, operating just as efficiently as those that prefer J tend to at the beginning of a project. This isn’t necessarily because they perform any better under pressure than anyone else, but rather that they work more effectively if they’ve had time to assemble the puzzle pieces in their head. On the other hand, if they’re required to operate in a Judging-oriented manner, focusing on the production end at the beginning of a project, they tend to work less efficiently. To put it in laymen’s terms, they may “doddle” a bit. This has nothing to do with their work ethic—they simply haven’t had sufficient time to formulate what they want to produce. And they’ll often change courses midstream, because along the way they’ve discovered a better approach. The Pot of Gold at the End of the Rainbow Admittedly, for someone with a Judging-oriented outlook, the idea of allowing someone who prefers P to follow their natural work style within a modern business setting probably sounds like following a rainbow to its end in search of a pot of gold. However, in this case, there is a substantial pot of gold in terms of value to the organization. First, this approach provides a critical counter-balance to the J-driven propensity to make decisions and act on them quickly. To be sure, the Judging-oriented approach offers tremendous value, particularly in projects that require milestones. But sometimes decisions are made too soon—and organizations are locked into a course of action that turns out to be less desirable than one that materializes later. If both Judging and Perceiving perspectives are respected, however, teams can achieve ongoing, yet tempered momentum. Second, understand that those that prefer P really aren’t at their best when they have to conform to J-driven processes. If they’re allowed to operate within their natural work style, they produce higher quality work. To put it simply, you’re getting more value out of them by giving them the flexibility to do things their own way, and positioning them for greater career success by allowing them to make best use of their talents. Finding Common Ground We’ve established that P frequently conforms to a J world. But should it be the other way around? The reality is that it’s probably unrealistic—and perhaps equally unbeneficial—for either side to completely flex its behavior to the expectations of the other side. Those preferring Perceiving have to understand what things look like to a manager or co-worker with a J preference, and provide assurances that things are indeed progressing toward a desirable outcome. This may involve agreeing on certain markers that indicate progress. A Word to the Wise… If you prefer P, understand that when your J-preferring colleagues flex their own work preferences to your style, you’ve got to deliver the goods. If you don’t, you may not get another chance to prove the value of your approach. The good news: As you consistently deliver quality results, your J colleagues will become increasingly supportive of your work style.

Search results for 'Carrie Wiser'

Categories

Refine By