
6 minute read
EMPEROR’S NEW TOOLS
Mark Gash throws his ID toys out of the pram and asks, "Is dull the new engagement?"
As someone who writes and designs for e-learning courses, I’m often trapped between wanting to create something that looks awesome, and needing to satisfy the demands of the client, who, by trying to fulfil the whims of every learner, stakeholder, governing body, accessibility standard, security contractor, and their own grandma, indirectly mandates that I should deliver bland, click-next shite.
My LinkedIn feed is populated by peers who push the envelope when it comes to creating beautiful-looking platform game-style Storyline courses, and I’ve been hearing for a decade that gamification is the next big thing.
I’ve designed branching adventures that could rival the size of the Amazon (rainforest, not Bezos’ warehouses, that would be ridiculous), and I’ve made myself nauseous creating proof-of-concept demos in virtual reality. No. Body. Wants. Them.
Now, there is an argument to be had that maybe I’m just crap at my job and that the innovative courses I try to push on clients just aren’t good enough to win them over. And as a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, I’m not going to contest that point - I’m better than average, but I’m not the greatest; just ask my wife.
Not every video game can be Sonic The Hedgehog 2 on the Sega Megadrive, but then games like Shaq Fu still got made. So what am I doing wrong?
Let’s look at a typical (for me - your mileage may vary) process for creating a mediocre piece of e-learning:
Client supplies the brief
The call is put out for an engaging, visually stimulating, innovative course that uses the latest technology and delivers on a bunch of learning outcomes.
We submit a proof of concept
Our proposal delivers the learning as a role-playing, branching adventure with consequential learning outcomes in an immersive 360° environment.
Client gives us the green light
Says they need to run it past a few other people, but it will be fine.
First module is delivered for testing and feedback
We even supply a handy feedback form that shows how the course meets the brief and the learning outcomes.
Client requests a meeting
The feedback form was too complicated for them to fill out.
The meeting
Client and random stakeholders ask if we can scale it back - it’s too innovative and their learners are used to a more traditional style of course. Maybe lose the 360° element.
The amended course
Learners now scroll through static screens, rather than being immersed in a 360° environment. But the course still has some of the original branching elements.
Client requests another meeting
The course needs to be accessible. We tell them it is, but they want it “more” accessible. Have we heard of Rise?
We deliver yet another Rise course
The client moans that it isn’t what we originally promised them. And one of their learners doesn’t like the pink jumper that the video presenter is wearing in module 2.
The problem here is the client (isn’t it always?), or rather, the fact that there isn’t just one client. The bigger the company you’re dealing with, the more people get involved, and your client can actually be 20 individuals, each with their own agenda and opinions.
So even if your original point of contact bought into your all-singing, all-dancing gamified extravaganza, the chances are, the rest of their team won’t.
Parts get taken away piece by piece until your awesome course is reduced down to... a Rise.
And this is where I deliver the twist - you’re probably expecting me to reveal my secret strategy for overcoming these awkward client showdowns. Or perhaps you’re waiting for my ultimate expletive-ridden take-down of Rise, so you can nod your head and chuckle to yourself as you murmur, “He’s right, he’s right!” as my frustrations with the instructional design landscape mirror your own experiences. But... what if... the clients are right?
What if gamification, experiential learning, branching storylines, consequences and innovation are just bullshit? The Emperor’s new clothes to try and convince people that e-learning can be fun, and that dressing it up will lead to a greater rate of knowledge absorption for learners?
In the same way that every smart phone has looked identical since 2010 and delivers the same core features of messaging, calling, internet access and a camera, yet Apple and Samsung keep inventing pointless new gimmicks (8k cameras, wireless charging, pens, folding screens...) to keep us buying the latest version, are we, as e-learning developers, guilty of the same?
Learners say they don’t have the time or the patience to undergo a thrilling 3D adventure about Cyber Security. They just want to take the course as fast as possible and get back to their day jobs.
Companies are looking for a tick in a box - insurance against their staff bolloxing up.
Trainers don’t want computers stealing their jobs - they love a classroom full of people and a PowerPoint.
Employees don’t want to go home on an evening and scroll through endless Netflix-style menus looking for the perfect piece of learning they can cosy up with before bed. There is no Learning & Chill.
And the big one, the nail in the coffin for all exciting, innovative, engaging learning projects, is that nobody wants to pay for it.
I admit that the above is biased towards corporate compliance training and that there are a few companies with budgets to burn that will fund and take a risk on something beyond a Rise, but really, shouldn’t all learning be quick and easy to access, absorb and move on from? There’s a reason Wikipedia is a blank white page with black text.
So maybe the future of e-learning is actually the past? Maybe we stop trying to wow clients with the new shiny thing and instead give them a structured course with clear learning outcomes that doesn’t take an orientation module to know how to navigate it. Maybe we listen to the board of directors, and maybe we stop arguing with the outsourced company that provided that accessibility report, and maybe we cancel our subscriptions to all those AI tools we like to mess about with, and instead, maybe we just churn out good old-fashioned click-next slide-based accordion-opening e-learning courses like it’s 2014. Maybe we are all guilty of Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome, where we keep trying to sell fancy, often unproven, ideas to clients who just want a decent pair of trousers.
That’s a lot of maybes. And maybe I’m not ready to give up on the concept of making e-learning cool, just yet. But we’ve got to ask ourselves if we’re designing for actual learning, or just to keep up with the latest tech fad, keep ourselves relevant and justify spending the client's budget.
The real trick might be to stop chasing the invisible, drop the act, and start delivering learning that simply, effectively, gets the job done.
Nah, sod that - somebody hand me a VR headset, I’ve got a fantastic idea for a new course.

Mark Gash Writer. Designer. AI Image Prompter.
Connect with him here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/markgash/