PFP: August 2001

Technique

How To Improve a Training Activity

In the previous issue of PFP we explored different dimensions of evaluating a training activity:

Summative evaluation for proving the effectiveness of the activity and formative evaluation for improving the effectiveness of the activity
Expert opinions (subject matter, game design, and target population) and player reactions
Intended main effects and unintended side effects
Process data and outcome data

In this issue, I want to incorporate these dimensions into a step-by-step model for evaluating and improving a training activity.

Here are the six steps in the model:

Self evaluation
Expert review
Play testing
Hands-off testing
Field testing
Long-term testing

Here are brief suggestions for what to do in each stage. I am relating these suggestions to the evaluation of a training game. You can use the same suggestions for evaluating any type of training activity.

Step 1. Self evaluation

Set aside your prototype design for a couple of days and let it incubate. Then critically evaluate the design, playing the roles of different experts. Use your hindsight and recall everything you know about the characteristics and preferences of the players. Recall the training objectives. Modify the game based on your intuition and second thoughts. Figure out the probable main effects of your design. Focus on the play process rather than the training results.

Step 2. Expert review

Get hold of a group of experts, using your friends if necessary. Ask them to review the content presented through the game, paying attention to such areas as relevancy, accuracy, and up-to-datedness. Also ask for comments on the playability of the game and its suitability for the target group. Ask your experts to revise the game design rather than merely identifying what is wrong with it. Ask them to think about both the main effects and the side effects of the game.

Step 3. Play testing

Try out the game with a group of locally available players. Focus on identifying major bugs and fixing them. Get the game started with minimal instructions. Make suitable modifications during the play of the game. Change the structure of the game drastically if player reactions and recommendations warrant it. When the play ends, ask players for their suggestions. Informally debrief them to figure out what they learned from the game. Make more changes and play test the game with another group. Repeat the process until you (and your players) and satisfied with the flow of the game and its instructional outcomes.

Step 4. Hands-off testing

Test the training game in actual settings in which it will be used (for example: in a workshop) in combination with all other training activities. Ask another facilitator or trainer to conduct the game while you observe what it happening. Pay attention to the main effects (the things you want to happen) as well as the unexpected side effects. After the session, interview participants for their reactions and recommendations. Modify the game (and other training activities) to incorporate positive side effects and eliminate the negative ones.

Step 5. Field testing

If you want to (and if you have the budget), ask someone else to conduct a controlled study to measure, record, and report the actual results of playing the game. Ask the evaluator to focus on summative evaluation (since you have probably improved it through the earlier steps in the process). Also ask the evaluator to prepare a report with details on the use of the game, player characteristics, and learning outcomes.

Step 6. Long-term testing

Let go of the game, but encourage other users (both facilitators and players) to send you informal evaluation data. Include easy-to-use questionnaires (and your e-mail address) with your game kit to collect and review the feedback. Randomly call people who purchased your game for their comments. Encourage people to share any modifications they made to the game. Upgrade and update your game based on this type of continuous evaluation. Remember that you will never be able to prepare The Final Version of any training game.

A Sample Application

Rather than bore you with detailed discussions of the evaluation model, let me recount a case study of systematically improving a training game. I designed this game in the mid-1970's to be used as a part of a consumer health-education course based on a technique called health-hazard appraisal. The specific objective for the game is to help players to recognize major causes of death for various age, sex, and racial subgroups.

Here's a description of an "improved" version of the game:

* * *

THIS WILL KILL YOU!

PARTICIPANTS

Three to six

TIME

The average game lasts for 20 minutes. The game can be replayed several times.

SUPPLIES

A 4 x 4 game board with these labels:

Columns: White Male, White Female, African-American Male, African-American Female
Rows: 7-year olds, 17-year olds, 37-year olds, 57-year olds

Poker chips of as many different colors as there are players

A copy of the Geller Tables which list leading causes of death for different racial and gender groups at different age levels

FLOW OF THE GAME

Choosing a judge. Ask a player to mix up poker chips of different colors. Other players close their eyes and pick a chip, leaving one behind. The player with the blue chip becomes the judge for the first game and takes charge of the Geller Tables. (The winner of the first game becomes the judge for the second game.)

Starting a round. The first player chooses a box in the game board. This box represents people of a particular age, race, and sex according to the labels for the column and the row. The player choosing the box announces her guess of the leading cause of death for that group.

Challenge. All other players (except the judge) take turns to challenge the first player's guess by offering an alternative cause of death that they believe to have a higher probability. No player may name a previously specified cause; a player may pass instead of challenging.

Winning the round. After all players have had their chance to challenge, the judge refers to the appropriate section of the Geller Tables and identifies the player whose guess is the highest probability cause of death for that age, sex, and racial subgroup. This player wins the round and places one of her chips in the appropriate box. If no player has challenged the first player's guess, this guess must be the "top killer" (the leading cause of death) according to the Geller Tables. If it is not, no player wins the round.

Penalties. At the end of each round, the winner removes a chip belong to each unsuccessful challenger (and the first player, if the initial guess was not the winning guess).

Continuing the game. Play progresses in clockwise direction with a new player making the first guess.

Ending the game. Game ends when there is a chip in every box of the grid. The player with the most chips on the grid wins the game.

* * *

How The Game Evolved

Here's a recollection of how I applied the steps of the evaluation model to improve the game from its prototype version to the version described above:

Step 1. Self evaluation

When I first reviewed the content, I decided that a 3 x 3 tic-tac-toe format would make the ideal game board. I decided to label the three columns with three groups (white male, white female, and African-American male) and the three rows with major causes of death (automobile accident, cancer, and heart attack). Two players played the game by taking turns to choose a box and to guess the percentage of people (of all ages) in that group killed by that cause. If this guess was within five percent of the Geller Tables value, the player marked the box with her symbol (X or O).

While this format looked exciting at first sight, in the cold light of the next day, it appeared rather trivial. Knowledge of percentages is not an important item for the players to recall; the more meaningful information is the probability ranking of major causes of death. So I revised the rows to three age groups (childhood, middle age, and old age) and required the player to name the leading cause of death for the selected box.

Step 2. Expert review

I asked my game-design friend, Diane, to review the design. She agreed that the tic-tac-toe grid was very appropriate for the given content. However, she felt that the constraint of three columns created gender imbalance. So we revised the game board to have four columns (with the addition of African-American female). We decided to retain the rule about the first player occupying three boxes in a straight line winning the game.

Step 3. Play testing

We rounded up a group of our long-suffering friends to play test the game. We made many changes during and after several rounds of play testing. Here's a summary of these changes:

Aspect of the game: Rows were labeled with three age groups

Player feedback: Nobody knew when middle age began and when it ended.

Modification: Increased the number of rows to eight to correspond to the number of age-level intervals in the Geller Tables.

Aspect of the game: A 4 x 8 grid was used.

Player feedback: The large number of boxes in the game board frightened the players. The game dragged on and on.

Modification: Used four age levels. Replace generic labels (childhood, middle age, and old age) with specific ages (7, 17, 37, and 57).

Aspect of the game: Three occupied boxes in a straight line wins the game

Player feedback: Players began specializing in a specific age group or race/sex subgroup. The game did not encourage comparisons across the board.

Modification: Changed the game-end rule to completing all the boxes in the grid: The player who occupied the most boxes at the end won the game.

Aspect of the game: When it was one player's turn, the other player had nothing to do.

Player feedback: The other players got bored and started kibitzing. They stopped paying attention to the first player's guess.

Modification: Incorporated the challenge rule: Opponent may challenge the first player's guess by offering an alternative cause of death. Whoever named the higher-probability cause won the round.

Aspect of the game: Challenge rule

Player feedback: Players indiscriminately challenged every guess (because they had nothing to lose).

Modification: Incorporated the penalty rule: All invalid challengers lost a box that they had occupied earlier.

Step 4. Hands-off testing

After five rounds of player testing, I decided to drop out of the picture and have someone else conduct the game. I prepared a simple set of rules and asked one of my colleagues (who had not participated in the earlier steps of testing) to run the game with a fresh pair of players. Since everyone was a part of our target population of "consumers of health services", we had no difficulty getting hold of representative players.

Here's a summary of changes from this step in the evaluation process:

Aspect of the game: Game grids were mimeographed (an ancient reproduction technique) on sheets of paper.

Player feedback: Players wrote their symbols and threw away the sheets at the end of each game.

Modification: Designed a more durable game board and used poker chips to identify the occupied boxes.

Aspect of the game: Only two players played at a board.

Player feedback: Competition between the players became very intense. Not enough game boards were available for all players.

Modification: Changed the rules to allow more than two players to play at the same game board.

Aspect of the game: All players had access to the Geller Tables.

Player feedback: Everyone checked the tables. Unscrupulous players peeked at other sections of the table to gain advance information.

Modification: Only the facilitator had access to the Geller Tables.

Aspect of the game: Only the facilitator had access to the Geller Tables.

Player feedback: With different groups playing at the same time, the facilitator's job became hectic.

Modification: Introduced the role of the player-judge.

Step 5. Field testing

Our client gave us a generous budget for a field test. We hired a graduate student to conduct a controlled study (which he later used his doctoral dissertation). This evaluator got carried away and constructed and administered a lot of tests and observation systems. It was an impressive study, but I read only the 2-page summary instead of the other 200 pages of details.

Step 6. Long-term testing

The game was used in an open-university setting as a part of a broadcast television course. The administrator of the course continuously and systematically collected data from the users. Eventually, however, the course (and the game) were abandoned when the project ran out of money.

Concluding Comments

I cheated in my case-study narrative by making the steps appear in a smooth and logical sequence. This reconstruction distorts the dynamic nature of the evaluation model. Be warned that when you apply this model to evaluate and improve your training activity, things may not proceed as smoothly as I made them appear.

[Table of Contents]

Tool Kit

Time for an Update

This month, instead of exploring another new interactive strategy, I would like to do an update on my "experimental" study.

You have probably heard about this sloppy study: It involves a single subject (me) repeatedly performing a single activity. I design one training game every day (including weekends and holidays) with the additional stipulation that each day's game should be significantly different from the previous three days' output. Since March 21, 1999, I have been conducting this study. As of today, I have designed 838 training activities. I sold 11 of them to my clients at exorbitant prices, published 84 in my books and newsletters, and buried the rest in various hard drives.

The important outcome of the study, however, is my realization that there are different strokes for different folks. So if you (or your friends) think that all training activities are just one type of games, let me share with you my current list of 52 different interactive experiential strategies for improving human performance. These are strategies that I have read about, heard about, and though about in my study.

This list is not organized in any fashion, except alphabetically. The categories are not mutually exclusive. However, the list keeps me thinking about different dimensions of effective interaction.

This list is not complete. Please send me brief notes about other interactive strategies that you have experienced, used, and created.

Here's the list:

***Action Learning involves a combination of action and reflection by a team to solve complex, strategic problems in a real-world organizational setting. Team members apply existing skills and knowledge and create new skills, knowledge, and insights through continuously reflecting on and questioning the problem definition, the collaborative behavior, and the ensuing results.
***Audio Games are training activities that primarily depend on playback of recorded audio messages (such as audiotape or streaming audio) to provide the training content, structure the training activity, and collect player's response. Most audio games use few or no visuals (in the form of text or graphics).
*Board Games borrow structures and play materials from popular recreational games to create highly motivating training events. Board games typically use game cards and dice to encourage individuals and teams to demonstrate their mastery of concepts, principles, skills, and problem-solving strategies.
***The Case Method involves a written account of a real or fictional situation surrounding a problem. Participants work individually and in teams to analyze, discuss, and recommend appropriate solutions and to critique each others' work. In some cases, the facilitator may recount the actual decisions implemented in the real-world situation on which the case was based.
*Cash Games are a special type of simulation game that involves actual cash transactions. They are not gambling games. Nor do they focus on accounting procedures or financial management. Instead, they explore interpersonal skills (such as negotiation) and concepts (such as cooperation). These games use cash because it effectively simulates the real world and brings out natural behaviors and emotions in participants.
**Classification Card Games involve pieces of information (such as facts, concepts, technical terms, definitions, principles, examples, quotations, and questions) printed on cards. These games borrow procedures from traditional playing card games and require players to classify and sequence pieces of information from the instructional content.
**Closers are activities conducted near the end of a session. They are used for reviewing main points, tying up loose ends, planning application activities, providing feedback, celebrating successful conclusion, and exchanging information for future contacts.
Coaching Activities involve an individual facilitator (the coach) supporting the learning and Improving Performance efforts of another individual (the coachee) through interactive questioning and guidance. The process usually requires the two people to establish goals and the coach to observe the coachee, debrief the activity, offer relevant feedback, and suggest suitable improvements.
Computer Game Shells incorporate special types of framegames that are presented on a computer screen. The shells permit the loading of new content (usually in the form of questions) by the facilitator. The computer program creates the game and acts as a timekeeper and scorekeeper. Some of the shells provide highly graphic interfaces with sound effects that reflect popular TV game shows. These computer games can be presented to large audiences by projecting the display on big screens.
Consensus Decisionmaking Activities involve a list of items (usually 10) to be arranged in order of priority. Participants complete the task individually and then reach consensus in teams. Then they compare their priority rankings with expert rankings. In the process, they learn more about factors that contribute to the importance of items and also factors that influence making decisions and reaching consensus in teams.
Corporate Adventure Learning involves physical activities (such as sailing, rafting, rappelling, rock climbing, exploring wilderness areas, and walking on rope bridges) in challenging indoor or outdoor environments. A trained facilitator ensures safety of participants and conducts suitable debriefing discussions that enable participants to construct knowledge, skill, and value from these exciting experiences.
*Creativity Techniques provide a structure that enables participants to solve a problem or to utilize an opportunity in a creative fashion. These techniques are useful not only for learning new skills and knowledge but also for improving the performance of a team.
****Debriefing Games are interactive strategies that are used for encouraging reflection and dialogue about an earlier activity or event. These games require processing of a common experience to extract key learning points from it. They generally encourage participants to identify and express emotions, recall events and decisions, share lessons learned, relate insights to other real-world events, speculate on how things could have been different, and plan for future action.
Disaster Simulations are activities that require participants to cope with simulations of natural or organizational disasters such as an earthquake or downsizing. In dealing with such disasters, participants learn to make fast collaborative decisions in complex and rapidly changing situations.
**E-mail Games are conducted through the internet. They may involve the play of electronic versions of interactive training games or specially-designed activities that permit asynchronous communication in which people receive and send messages at different times. Typical e-mail games exploit the ability of internet to ignore geographic distances and involve participants pooling their ideas and polling to select best ones.
Facilitated Activities help teams analyze problems, formulate goals, generate alternative solutions, and make decisions. Usually, a trained facilitator conducts these structured activities to help teams maximize their diverse talents and to arrive at collaborative solutions that are superior to individual solutions.
Fantasy Roleplay Games require participants to enact individual or team roles, often within a science-fiction or fantasy scenario. These roleplay activities focus on skills and concepts related to such topics as leadership, teamwork, and planning. Debriefing after the roleplay draws parallels between the fictional fantasy and workplace reality.
*Framegames provide templates for instant creation of training games. These generic frameworks are deliberately designed to permit easy replacement of old content with new content. You can use framegames to rapidly develop training activities that suit your needs.
Graphic Analogies Discussion Generators are based on brilliant designs from Scott Simmerman. These activities use cartoon illustrations to engage, enlist, and involve people in performance-improvement discussions and to stimulate collaboration and creativity. The strategy basically involves asking a group of people to compare elements from a generic illustration to the organizational context.
Guided Learning Activities provide a special type of on-the-job training. New employees (or new members of a team) observe workplace processes using carefully designed checklists. Later, they perform job-related activities under the guidance of an experienced employee or team member and receive immediate feedback.
***Openers are activities conducted near the beginning of a session. They are used to preview main points, orient participants, introduce participants to one another, form teams, establish ground rules, set goals, reduce initial anxieties, or stimulate self-disclosure.
**Improv Games are activities adapted from improvisational theater. The actors do not use a script but create the dialogue and action as they perform. When used as an interactive training technique, improv games facilitate the mastery of skills related to such areas as creativity, collaboration, communication, and change.
**Instructional Puzzles challenge the participant's ingenuity and incorporate training content that is to be previewed, reviewed, tested, re-taught, or enriched. Puzzles can be solved by individuals or by teams.
*Interactive Lectures involve participants in the learning process while providing complete control to the instructor. These activities enable a quick and easy conversion of a passive presentation into an interactive experience. Different types of interactive lectures incorporate built-in quizzes, interspersed tasks, teamwork interludes, and participant control of the presentation.
***Interactive Story Telling involves fictional narratives in a variety of forms. Participants may listen to a story and make appropriate decisions at critical junctures. They may also create and share stories that illustrate key concepts, steps, or principles from the instructional content.
***Item Processing is an interactive strategy in which individuals and teams generate, organize, and sequence ideas, facts, questions, complaints, or suggestions. As a result of this activity, participants create organized lists of items. More importantly, this activity enables participants to construct meaningful categories and sequences from isolated items. This results in deeper understanding and easier recall of the content.
**Jolts lull participants into behaving in a comfortable way and deliver a powerful wake-up call. They force participants to re-examine their assumptions and revise their standard procedures. Jolts typically last for a few minutes but provide enough insights for a lengthy debriefing.
*Magic Tricks incorporate a relevant conjuring trick as a part of a training session. Magic tricks provide metaphors or analogies for important elements of the training content. The tricks are also used as processes to be analyzed, reconstructed, learned, performed, or coached for training participants in appropriate procedures.
**Matrix Games require participants to occupy boxes in a grid by demonstrating a specific skill or knowledge. The matrixes provide a structure for matching or classifying individual items or organizing and comparing a set of items. The first participant to occupy a given number of boxes in a straight line (horizontally, vertically, or diagonally) wins the game.
*Metaphorical Simulation Games (MSGs) reflect real-world processes in an abstract, simplified fashion. MSGs are particularly useful for teaching principles related to planning, generating ideas, testing alternatives, making decisions, utilizing resources, and working under time pressure.
**Paper-and-Pencil Games require players to make their moves by writing or drawing something on paper. A typical game may involve players working on a small piece (or a large sheet) of paper. Paper-and-pencil games may incorporate elements of roleplays, simulations, creativity techniques, or quiz contests.
*PC Simulations use playing cards to reflect real-world objects and processes. The rules of PC simulations typically encourage participants to discover principles of interpersonal interaction and inductive thinking.
Polarity Management™ is a team-based approach created by Barry Johnson for identifying and managing unsolvable problems. The technique involves identifying polarities (such as team vs. individual), listing the positive and negative aspects of each pole, and systematically working toward action guidelines for effectively managing the dilemma.
Procedural Simulations are dress rehearsals of real-world events, such as conducting a raid to rescue hostages, evacuating a burning building, or being subjected to a surprise inspection by auditors from the funding agency. By working through these simulations, participants get ready for real-world events.
*Read.me Games combine the effective organization of well-written documents with the motivational impact of Interactive Experiential activities. Participants read a handout and play a game that uses peer pressure and support to encourage recall and transfer of what they read.
**Reflective Teamwork involves participants creating a product related to some aspect of teamwork. Teams then evaluate their characteristics and performance by using the product they created.
***Roleplays involve participants assuming and acting out characters, personalities, and attitudes other than their own. These activities may be tightly or loosely structured and may involve a participant assuming multiple roles or reversed roles.
Scenario Educational Software (SES) is a computer-simulation format developed by Mark Keegan to incorporate key features of discovery learning. A typical SES program transports participants to a specific time and place (such as a health clinic in West Africa or a penitentiary in Rikers Island). The simulated activity presents an optimal challenge, requires participants to make decisions, and provides relevant feedback. Most SES activities last for a significant period of time to maximize the impact of repeated practice.
Sharing Circles David Cowan, Susanna Palomares, and Dianne Schilling have been successfully using this approach for the past 25 years. The technique involves eight to 12 participants seated in a circle, sharing a discussion of a selected topic. Everyone gets a turn to share without interruptions, probes, and put downs. The session concludes with a review and a summary.
***Simulation Games help participants experience an event similar to a real event-without the difficulty, expense, or danger of the real event. Originally used in war games for training officers and soldiers, simulation games are currently used in business games for teaching complex concepts. Most simulations are based on models of reality. Computers are frequently used to translate complex models in such areas as aircraft piloting and urban planning into graphic representations.
Structured Group Discussions use a self-contained instructional format designed for collaborative learning among team members-without the need for an outside facilitator. The activity is facilitated by an audio or videotape recording or a computer program that specifies discussion topics, presents background information, imposes time limits, and provides feedback (in the form of model responses and checklists).
*Structured Sharing represents a special type of framegame that facilitates mutual learning and teaching among participants. Typical structured sharing activities create a context for a dialogue among participants based on their experiences, knowledge, and opinions.
***Telephone Games use telephones and answering machines. They may involve the play of interactive training games over long distances. Telephone games may involve elements of roleplay and virtual teamwork.
****Television Game Shows borrow the structure of popular TV game shows to present the instructional content and to encourage participants to practice skills. They involve selected contestants and the "studio audience" who participate and learn vicariously. TV Games can be broadcast for distance learning , made available on videotapes, or presented live by using computer game shells and graphics.
****Thought Experiments are mental roleplays that involve guided visualization. Individual participants mentally rehearse new patterns of behavior or hold imaginary dialogues. Combined with self-reflection, these activities result in increased self-awareness and mastery of new knowledge and insights.
**Training Devices involve physical activities performed on electrical and mechanical pieces of equipment. Participants solve a problem or meet a challenge with the device and relate the process to their workplace activities.
Troubleshooting Simulations require participants to systematically find the causes of problems and to fix the problems. These simulations can use realistic simulators (as in the case of debugging faulty machinery) or computer printouts of output data (as in the case of slowing down the loss of market share).
Video Feedback involves each member of a group roleplaying an interpersonal skill. This is followed by the group members providing positive and constructive feedback to each roleplayer with the intent of helping the person improve his or interpersonal skills.
***Video Vitamins enhance the instructional value of training videos. In a typical video vitamin, participants watch a videotape and then play one or more games that help review and apply the new concepts and skills.
Wall Games, based on designs by Steve Sugar, typically involve posters mounted on a wall (or an easel) that require participants to write or draw. A typical wall game may present a vertical version of a board game, a matrix game, or an instructional puzzle. Participants may play these games individually or in teams.
Web-Based Games are interactive activities presented on the Internet. A variety of games and simulations can be played on the web by individuals or by teams. Multiplayer games permit several participants to interact with each other at the same time.
WebQuests are based on a format developed by Bernie Dodge and Tom March at San Diego State University. They feature a special type of inquiry learning in which participants collect information from the Web. WebQuests focus on using information rather than merely retrieving it. A typical WebQuest requires participants to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the information from the Web.

What's with those crazy asterisks?

Ignore them; they're for my own reference.

Okay, if you really want to know, they refer to the books of collected tool kits that I have published so far.

Strategies marked with a single asterisk (*) are found in my first collection, Interactive Experiential Training.
Strategies marked with a double asterisk (**) are found in my second collection, Interactive Strategies for Improving Performance.
Strategies marked with a triple asterisk (***) are found in my third collection, More Interactive Strategies for Improving Performance.
Strategies marked with four asterisks (****) are scheduled for publication in my forthcoming fourth collection.

[Table of Contents]

Guest Gamer

This column features interviews with outstanding designers and users of interactive experiential activities. Our guest this month is Les Lauber, who has been a training practitioner for more than eight years. His resume is diverse, eclectic, and unfocused. After stints as radio disc jockey, factory worker, pizza cook, news reporter, insurance agent, parking meter repairperson, and loan industry analyst he turned to the good side of the Force. Currently employed by the State of Kansas, he spends his days leading a team of trainers in designing and delivering professional development and leadership classes. He designs games in such topics as communications, problem solving, clarification of participants' roles in the organization, etc. He recently collaborated with Thiagi on a set of card games based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®.

Interview with Les Lauber

Thiagi: Les, what's your specialty area?

Les: Although I love realistic simulations, when I use one that is too realistic, I encounter a lot of denial. Participants start nit picking, finding reasons the simulation isn't real enough. When I use metaphorical simulation games, we move past the defensiveness, past the fear of "doing it wrong," and concentrate on the relevant skills, knowledge, and attitudes. My goal for each game is to surface the behaviors and attitudes that the participants are letting get in the way of their own success. During the debrief we grapple with these behaviors and attitudes. After participants run around popping balloons, work blindfolded with ropes, or whatever, I always make sure they see the relevance of the game. In fact, my all-time favorite debriefing question is "So, how is this like your organization?" I am never disappointed in the metaphors the participants themselves draw from the games. They frequently surprise themselves.

Thiagi: With your diverse background, how did you get into designing and using games?

Les: I'm not really sure! I have always played games. Some of my earliest memories are of playing some precursor to Chutes and Ladders with my great aunt Scena on Sunday afternoons. In grade school, I quickly realized it was much more fun to referee basketball and kickball than to actually play. I recall selling "Get Out of Jail Free" cards to my younger brother and sister, auctioning them off up to $500 at a time. I remember Dad walking into the room, and being none-too-impressed when I explained that Monopoly is a game about the free market. In high school, I first consciously changed or ignored game rules that didn't make sense or fit my playing style. We played roleplaying games, and when a rule was silly I simply disregarded it. (In roleplaying games, lots of rules are silly.)

Then, I became a trainer.... One of the first Train-the-Trainer workshops I attended was Creative Training Techniques, by the organization that is now the Bob Pike Group. When I saw how they used activities, how much the participants learned, and how effective the tools were, I started adding games and simulations to my programs. It was a natural extension of my personal interest into my professional life.

Thiagi: How long have you been designing and using games?

Les: I started tweaking and modifying games when I was 13 or so. When a game wasn't satisfying, rather than throw out the game I tried to adjust it until it became satisfying. That tweaking is a product of my personality, I think. I've watched a number of people design games, and those people most like me in personality tend to refine rather than create from scratch. In fact, out-of-the-box thinking is, for me, a learned skill set and not entirely a natural experience.

Professionally, I've been using games for about eight years. My first activity was in a class with only two trainees. I pointed to one trainee and said to her "You are a student loan." I pointed to the other and said to him "You are the Loan Processing Software." Then I facilitated a roleplay on the life cycle of a student loan.

Thiagi: Where do you use games?

Les: Anywhere I believe the participants will benefit from an experience. I have even used games in job interviews to give the interviewers a feel for my style and how I interact with others. I use games in one-on-one coaching, training, and presenting in conferences. I select games to structure experiences that encourage participants to reflect and learn.

Thiagi: How do your clients respond?

Les: Generally, very favorably. There is a perception that organizations dislike or disapprove of games as not very professional. I don't find that to be true. Organizations are interested in results. Individuals within organizations sometimes disapprove of games as not professional, and that's where the hard sell is. More than one client in more than one organization has suggested to me that I shouldn't spend half an hour with a game when I can lecture for less than 10 minutes on the same material. When that happens, I start a discussion about the results the organization has received from other lecture-based trainings. I am usually able to bring to the surface that the individual is distrustful of training because the organization may not have seen a lot of results from these previous lectures. At that point, the discussion moves to why games, or "experiential learning activities," are more effective than lecture. After all, if I provide for them the same lecture format they've received and been disappointed in before, we can reasonably assume they will be disappointed this time, too. So why not risk something different--what's the worst that can happen, that they'll be disappointed? We're already heading down that path, so rather than go a direction where they're certain of an unsatisfactory outcome, let's change the direction and see if the results are better. My experience with clients has been that they are very pleased with the results, especially for retreats and conferences.

Thiagi: How do your participants respond?

Les: I have lost count now of the number of people who have come to me after a session saying, "I don't do games, but this was great and I really learned a lot from it." If someone doesn't want to play a game, I never ask "Why not?" but accept it at face value. I assign that participant a task that involves observation of what is happening in the game. I don't find that happening very often, though. Games give me a couple of advantages in a session: first, there is a common set of experiences, so nobody is wondering "why is that person talking about something that never happened to the rest of us?" Second, the discussion and learning points become intensely personal to participants when they are the focus of the training, instead of the "sage on the stage." Third, people remember experiences, and they will remember what happened to them and what they learned in the games. Finally, when people are involved with the games, they are more receptive to learning.

Thiagi: What is the most memorable moment you had in conducting games?

Les: I once conducted several workshops for a corporation in another state. I started the first workshop with an icebreaker where participants finished the statement "If I were braver, I would try...", then disclosed the answer. The first person gave the typical "skydiving" or "bungee-jumping" type answer. However, the second person finished the statement with "finding a better job." I thanked this person for her willingness to take risks, and reminded the participants of the importance of maintaining confidences. The next person said, "Well, I'm glad you said that. I have the same answer!". By the time we were through with the icebreaker, exactly one-half the class had given some version of the "quit" answer. This did not start the session on the most positive possible note! I made sure that everything we did for the rest of the session we tied back to how the participants could use what was happening when they returned to their workstations. The class actually recovered well after that--in fact, right after we dismissed that afternoon, the supervisor came running into the training room and said "What did you do to those people? I've never seen so much energy out there on the floor!" I don't believe, though, that I'll ever forget that feeling when I realized that most of the class didn't care to be working there, but were afraid to leave.

Thiagi: What advice do you have to newcomers about designing training games?

Les: When a rule doesn't make sense, or detracts from the learning experience, change it. Games are like pizzas--changing the rules is like changing toppings or sauce ingredients. You won't get the same flavors, but if you're not in the mood for olives or if you're allergic to mushrooms, why on earth would you have them? Same thing with game rules. Don't keep them just because someone wrote them. Focus on your goal for using a game: You want a specific group of participants to have a specific type of experience. If some of the rules of the game prevent them from having this desired experience, get rid of those rules. However, just to be sure, play-test the revised game before using it.

Thiagi: What advice do you have about conducting training games?

Les: Let me repeat the previous piece of advice: Play-test the game before using it. If possible, play-test it with people who are like members of the target audience. Think about the accessibility of the game--is it accessible to individuals with sight, hearing, speech, or other impairments? Adapt the instructions to meet learning styles: provide written instructions for players who need to read something for it to make sense, explain the directions for other players who process best when they listen, and demonstrate the game for players who learn best by mimicking others. Let the game take on a life of its own. Trust participants to get from the game what they need, not necessarily what you think they need. At the same time, don't let the game go too far. When people get too wrapped up in winning the game they may destroy relationships.

Thiagi: What's the best way to get acceptance for the use of games?

Les: I seldom tell non-trainers that we're playing a game. I explain, "We have an activity to get to the heart of what we've been discussing." This approach signals to the participants that what is going on is job-oriented. One of my team members does a brilliant job of getting acceptance for the use of training games. During the debriefing, he asks the participants, "If the Governor had just walked in, how would you explain to him what important things you are getting from playing with remote control cars and mousetraps?" By using this question, my friend gets participants to tell him how to justify his use of the games.

Thiagi: What do you think is the most important characteristic of a facilitator?

Les: A facilitator should be comfortable when the game takes on its own life. They should tinker with the game to make it fit what the participants need for their learning. One of the hardest and yet most important things for a facilitator to do (especially if this person loves games like I do) is to refuse to use a game that is "cool" but does not fit the learning needs of the participants.

Thiagi: What do you think is the most important characteristic of a training game?

Les: Early in experimenting with training games, I used games that were fun but didn't relate to the training content. We all had a good time, but didn't learn anything that was job-relevant. Recently, I learned another important lesson from participating in a training game. The trainer had designed a game about motivation that intentionally frustrated the players. The learning points were related to motivation, but they were lost on the participants who were wrapped up in the frustrating experience and in being disgusted with the trainer. These experiences helped me discover the two critical, inviolable rules to using a training game: there must be a learning point, and the game must be satisfying to the participants.

Thiagi: What type of participants do you like?

Les: I like participants who are curious and willing to explore both the game and their reaction to it.

Thiagi: What do you hate the most in a facilitator?

Les: How many times have I been in debriefing discussions in which a facilitator took my comment about what I experienced during a game, in my work life, or even personal life and "corrected" it because it didn't meet his teaching needs? I hate that! My experience is my experience, and if it doesn't meet the facilitator's training objectives, so be it! If the facilitators want a different experience, they shouldn't ask for mine.

Thiagi: What do you hate the most in a training game?

Les: A training game that is too simple to keep my attention. If I'm not paying attention, what learning experience am I having? And if I'm not having a learning experience, the entire purpose of the game vanishes.

Thiagi: What do you hate the most in a participant?

Les: I become most frustrated with participants who are too cynical to allow themselves to learn. I used a game recently in a multi-day training to discuss how teaming works in our organization. The game had the added benefit of dividing the participants into new teams for the day. We had an excellent debrief regarding what had happened, how people reacted to it, what it meant about their workplaces, and how they were going to behave differently as a result. I mean, this was an excellent discussion! Nonetheless, an hour later, one participant commented that the only reason for conducting the earlier game was to sneakily divide participants into new teams. Even though the real reasons for the game had clearly emerged during the debrief, he held on to his belief that they were only "smokescreens" for changing teams.

Thiagi: What types of games do you use most frequently?

Les: I tend to use a lot of metaphorical simulation games and playing card simulations. Recently I used TEAM POKER I in which each participant receives random playing cards and forms teams with high-ranking poker hands. One group had only four players and therefore only four cards, which came nowhere close to having a poker hand. One of the players came to me and complained that no one wanted any of those four on their teams. So I handed her a Joker! I said, "Here, see what the four of you can do with this." She instantly became the most popular person in the room. During the debrief, it became very clear that I was the least popular person in the room--because I had changed the rules in the middle of the game. So I asked my favorite question: "Well, how is this like your organization?" and an exciting conversation began.

A technique I sometimes use with role-plays is to sneak interesting incidents to the players. I just write up a couple dozen things for the players to add to their drama, like "you got only three hours sleep last night and it's hard to focus," or "just before this meeting someone told you the funniest joke you've heard in a long time." They are not supposed to share these incidents with other role-players, but just incorporate it into their own behaviors. This minor addition adds depth to the game and leads to great discussion during the debrief.

Thiagi: What is your favorite game?

Les: It depends on the game genre. My favorite training game right now is WIN AS MUCH AS YOU CAN from one of the Pfeiffer Handbooks of Structured Experiences. Based on THE PRISONER'S DILEMMA, this activity explores concepts of cooperation, teamwork, negotiation, strategy, impressions of others, following through on promises, and lots of other concepts. It is a simple activity--but rich in its potential for debriefing.

My favorite card game is called THE VERY CLEVER PIPE GAME, designed by James Ernest of Cheapass Games. Players compete against each other to create sets of closed water pipes and collect cards. It appeals both to my seven-year old nephew and my hard-core game-playing friends. No two games are alike, and I can play it for hours.

For years, my favorite board game has been the STARSHIP COMBAT SIMULATOR, long out of print. This game is where I first worked on balancing out a game. The game does not accurately simulate the physics of traveling around in space, but it is a pretty good simulation of Star Trek space combat scenes. I spent hours playing it in high school and college, and it has great sentimental value.

I enjoy a historical simulation series called CIVIL WAR: BRIGADE. The series is an incredible tool for learning about and understanding various battles in the American Civil War. This game's claim to fame is the use of a Command System that simulates the delivery of orders within an army. More importantly for me as a trainer, I learned from this game that a simulation should not be always balanced. Sometimes, when a simulation is perfectly balanced, it no longer simulates what it is supposed to.

Thiagi: Who are your favorite game designers?

Les: You are one, of course. We repeatedly use your SHOUTING MATCH game to let participants vent their feelings when we find them resistant to the topic. We then cover the factors that cause the resistance and get into the training content in less than 20 minutes; without using it, we may take 90 minutes or more to get through all the feelings. Another one of my favorite game designers is Alain Rostain, whose Improv Game COMPANY PICNIC is always a sure win. Sam Sikes' activities are all interactive, energetic, and involving. James Ernest's games are designed for recreation, not training, but are whimsical, creative, and challenging. I also like the work of Dean Essig who designed CIVIL WAR: BRIGADE. Historical accuracy and playability are paramount for this series, and I admire the integrity they achieve.

Thiagi: Do you have any book recommendations?

Les: For games and activities, I like your books. I have also found 50 Creative Training Closers and 50 Creative Training Openers by Lynn Solem and Bob Pike very useful. Books that have made me think are Lateral Thinking and Edward de Bono's Mind Pack by Edward de Bono. I also have to recommend Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. The protagonists are children in a science fiction adventure, and are trained using simulations of various complexities. I have been thinking recently about how it might be an appropriate work for a "Trainer's Book Club," even though it's fiction. It really made me think about simulations, how I use or misuse them, their ethical uses and applications, and how people use games to relate and interact with each other. And when you read it, pay attention to the instructors' debriefs! Another science fiction novel prominently featuring games as cultural metaphor is "The Final Reflection" by John M. Ford, a Star Trek novel from the Klingon culture's perspective.

Thiagi: What is your prediction about the future of games?

Les: I can't imagine a future without games. Given that training is both more effective and more efficient when games are used, I am convinced that games are here to stay. I expect that organizations will begin to demand activities and games as part of their training package. I already know of several organizations that divide training catalogues into "highly experiential" and "low experiential" categories.

[Table of Contents]

Metaphorical Simulation Game

In our June contest, we invited PFP readers to design a variation of Tic-Tac-Toe that will keep adult players intrigued and challenged. The winning entry, coincidentally, is from this month's guest gamer!

HEADS AND TAILS: Beyond Tic-Tac-Toe
by Les Lauber

This Tic-Tac-Toe variant challenges adult players by forcing them to trade off tactical gains for strategic advantage, find balance between aggressive play and thoughtful resource conservation, and bluff. Instead of taking alternate turns, players bid for the right to place their marker on the grid, but when they win the bid their available cash resources are diminished.

Purpose

To explore how individuals use resources to accomplish a task.

Time

15 minutes

Participants

Two. You can divide a larger group into pairs to play the game. See variations for team versions.

Supplies

51¢ for each player, in these denominations: 1 quarter, 1 dime, 2 nickels, 6 pennies
A Tic-Tac-Toe grid
Blank paper slips or index cards for each player

Flow

Explain the Game. Present these two important points to the players, using your own words:

You will not use X's and O's to mark your plays on the tic-tac-toe grid. Instead, you will use your coins to mark the grid. One of you will be the "Heads" player and will place coins heads-up on the grid. The other will be the "Tails" player who will place coins tails-up on the grid.
You will not take turns to move. One of you may get to place several coins in a row before the other player gets to place a coin on the grid.

Conduct the Bidding Round. Both players take a blank slip and write a bid on it. The bid must be at least 1¢ but no more than the amount of money they currently have.

Reveal the Bids. Both players ante up with one penny. They then reveal their bids. The player who bid the highest amount takes back the penny. The penny from the other player (who bid the lower amount) is discarded from the game.

Rebid if necessary. If the players tie, they rebid until one player wins the Bidding Round. The original ante maintains until the bidding round is over: players do not need to ante up more than once in any round.

Place the Coin. The player who won the bid places the highest value coin involved in the winning bid on the grid. It is not allowable to say "My winning bid of twelve cents was two nickels and two pennies", unless the player's dime has already been played onto the grid. The balance of the bid remains with the player for use during the next round.

Conduct the Next Bidding Round. The player who lost the first bid now has a pot worth 50¢ (the ante was not returned). This player may therefore only bid up to 50¢ in the second round. The player who won the first bid now has an amount reduced in value by the largest coin used in that bid. (Example: If the player winning the first bidding round played a dime, that player has only 41¢ available for bid, including the ante that was returned.)

Continue the Game. The sequence of bidding and placing coins continues until one player has placed three coins in a row or the game has reached a tie.

Debriefing

Ask the players how their strategies and tactics changed during the game as they lost or won bidding rounds. Discuss the game experience with these types of questions:

How did you react to losing or being reimbursed your antes?
What were your reactions to the way you used your resources (the coins)?
In what way does this game reflect experiences in the workplace?
What analogies can you draw between what happens in this game and what happens in your organization?
What will you do differently in balancing strategies, tactics, and resources in your jobs as a result of what you have discovered here?

Variations

Auction Bids. Instead of a secret bidding round, one player opens with a bid, the other makes a response. The opening player may then bid again or allow the second player to win the bidding round. This continues until one player wins the bidding round.

Best of 3. This variation focuses on balancing a long-term strategy against immediate tactics. The players start with 3 quarters, 3 dimes, 6 nickels, and 16 pennies. They play three games; the player winning two of the three games wins the match. (If they tie, the player with the larger balance wins.) Money played on the grid or lost in the ante phase may not be carried to the next game.

Teamwork. Two teams of 5-7 people each determine the amount to bid and where to place the coins by consensus.

Hierarchy and Bureaucracy. Each team is organized into a bidding group (2-3 members), a placing group (2-3 members), and a manager. The bidding group may not talk to the placing group. The Manager approves all decisions, and may alter them at will. The manager may transfer members between teams, or remove members altogether, at will.

[Table of Contents]

PLAY FOR PERFORMANCE: August 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAY FOR PERFORMANCE:

Mission

Editorial Roster

Copyright Info

Subscription Info

Feedback Request

G'Day Mate!

How To Improve a Training Activity

Step 1. Self evaluation

Step 2. Expert review

Step 3. Play testing

Step 4. Hands-off testing

Step 5. Field testing

Step 6. Long-term testing

A Sample Application

THIS WILL KILL YOU!

How The Game Evolved

Step 1. Self evaluation

Step 2. Expert review

Step 3. Play testing

Step 4. Hands-off testing

Step 5. Field testing

Step 6. Long-term testing

Concluding Comments

Time for an Update

What's with those crazy asterisks?

Interview with Les Lauber

HEADS AND TAILS: Beyond Tic-Tac-Toe by Les Lauber

Purpose

Time

Participants

Supplies

Flow

Debriefing

Variations

SURPRISING SENTENCE

Purpose

Time

Supplies

Flow

Debriefing

NOT FAIR!

Digital ID

Countdown to Motivation

GAME as an Acronym

The Rules

Character Development

HEADS AND TAILS: Beyond Tic-Tac-Toe
by Les Lauber