Failing to Win!

 

It is striking how different this is to typical training and education. The practice of training is dominated by methods of error avoidance. In education there is a huge literature on fear of failure in the classroom that work against the encouragement of experimentation and mistakes in the learning process. Many reasons are posited for this such as competition, social comparison and culture – where many see learning and testing as the same thing. The pervading culture and practice means that only the brightest and most confident students view errors as a ‘learning opportunity’. Work by researchers such as Covington show that these students perform better as a result.

 

There are many reasons why errors are important for learning; starting with the most obvious one which is simply that – human errors are extremely common.

 

In work and life, errors are frequent

 

Intuitively it would seem strange to avoid errors as part of the learning process. Human systems and our activities within them are complex and dynamic; mistakes, unexpected results and new events should be the norm. Research confirms this intuition. Psychologist Michael Frese has studied errors in training and learning. From this work he has defined a ‘Law of Error Frequency’;

 

“You make approximately 3 to 4 errors per hour every task that you are working on”

 

Arguably, for today’s information worker engaged in multiple complex tasks and distracted attention this figure could be an underestimate. Given the frequency of errors in everyday tasks it would seem crazy not to plan for these as part of training and learning. Frese is one of a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists that are examining not just how we can plan for errors, but more interestingly, how errors can improve learning performance.

 

The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing

 

Almost cliché of a quote; increasingly it seems as though there is a lot of truth in this, however, certain conditions must be present for learning performance to really benefit.

 

Over the past decade psychologists have experimented by incorporating error management methodologies into training interventions. These methods take a positive approach to errors – the intervention expects and can even force errors during learning; students are encouraged to make errors; students are given less guidance and more control; and are trained in methods of assessing errors.

 

These studies have looked at a raft of different learning domains – pharmaceutical management training, software simulation, cockpit resource management, computer programming, business skills, firefighters – the evidence is pretty clear; error management training leads to better performance by students than error avoidant training.

 

So how does this work?

 

Well, clear feedback on errors is a key requirement. If you have clear feedback, it’s better to learn from errors than error avoidant training with similar conditions. Furthermore, according to Frese, the more complex the task the more important it is to focus on error management and the bigger a differential with error avoidant training. So it is not just important for high consequence tasks such as monitoring a nuclear power station or surgical procedures, this approach benefits the complex information processing tasks that inhabit the life of an everyday information worker.

 

The error management framework and its positive approach to errors stimulate learner reflection processes. Errors themselves become triggers for learner reflection and the error management processes then support metacogntive appraisal of the errors. Moreover, in a finding that will be a surprise to some practitioners but no surprise to the gamers out there, where learners are encouraged to identify and constructively manage errors, then those errors can be highly motivational within training. Errors and mistakes as engagement; whatever next? It could be that the motivational elements are part of the whole package of positive error management: learner control, openness, reflection, positive attitude and appraisal processes. For instance, there is evidence that this package of ‘safe failure’ components increases student exploration of learning stimuli within a problem space. As if the student has the confidence, ‘permission’ and support to explore learning stimuli more widely.

 

Why? We are wired to learn like this

 

Given the complexity of our environment we would not survived very long as a species if we did not rapidly learn from errors – both human and environmental. It is surely hard wired into our adaptive brains. Recent work in cognitive neuroscience has started to uncover the mechanisms and processes involved in this.

 

Markus Ullsperger from the Max Planck Institute for Neurological Research in Germany is a prominent researcher in this field. Using brain imaging techniques and controlled behaviour studies, Ullsperger and his colleagues have identified how errors provide the brain with information on how to refine and improve behaviour.

 

These studies have identified the specialised brain mechanisms that are activated to recognize errors, correct them and optimize behaviour. In particular, the area of the medial frontal cortex (MFC) is important in performance monitoring and reaction to errors. The MFC plays a central role in detecting mistakes and responding to them. Whenever we make errors in a task, receive negative feedback or reduced rewards and then change our behaviour then the MFC becomes active. The neurotransmitter dopamine helps complete the picture in this error management system. Dopamine producing cells alter their activity according to positive or negative feedback – changing the brain state to promote learning from both successes and failures.

 

 

Back to games again

 

Evidence from practitioners, behavioral studies and brain imaging is converging on the crucial role of error management in learning performance. Video game designers have known this for a long time and actively incorporate safe failure mechanisms into gameplay. The advent of Serious Games and Immersive Learning Simulations (ILS) hold the potential for introducing high fidelity safe failure environments into mainstream education and training.

 

A recent report by the eLearning Guild of over 1,100 corporations identified safe failure as a key benefit of ILS.

 

“The great promise of immersive learning simulations (ILS) is that best practice modeling is now possible in a computer generated, 3-D, real-time, safe environment. People can test scenarios, get real-time feedback, and review and evaluate both good performance and potentially catastrophic mistakes”

 

I know of many mainstream ILS developments that have utilised safe-failure mechanisms in their design to improve learning outcomes. These cover a wide range of learning applications including – sales training, Roman history, food preparation, airport security, leadership skills, discrimination, interviewing, crime scene investigation and many others.  I mention two case studies now as they cover different learner populations and were assessed.

 

In his 2006 thesis, Richard Blunt employed causal comparative study methodology to examine the effect of ILS on management student education in Walden University. Over a 15 week semester, classes of students used a Turn Based Strategy Sim called Virtual U as a basis for learning in half of their formal lessons. Virtual U is designed as a simulation of running a university. Instructors used this as a basis for assigning progressively harder scenarios that supported the subject lectures in the curriculum. Students in classes using the game scored significantly higher mean scores than classes that did not. In describing these results and making observations on the overall study, Blunt makes clear the role of safe failure:

 

“The decisions were sometimes made slowly, sometimes quickly, sometimes very quickly. The advantage to games and simulations is the player gets to view and analyze the consequences of decisions without actual risk to people, resources, capital, or reputation. Practiced routinely, game-based learning can, as this study is used to show, increase learning which leads to increased competitive advantage”

 

This has been further demonstrated in a study by Ufi learndirect. This study focused upon adult learners with learning difficulties and low learning esteem that had been unemployed for a minimum of two years. The ILS featured different 3D working environments – a business office and a food processing factory. Students undertook different learning scenarios within the environments in which they had to achieve increasingly difficult business goals. Students were given minimal guidance and encouraged to explore the environments, interacting with different actors, objects and events in order to achieve different work goals.  Using the ILS significantly improved learning outcomes. Learner self reports and observed error / replay behaviour indicated a key role for ‘safe failure’ in motivation and performance. Examples of learner quotes:

 

‘Do you mean it’s a game where you can try being at work? What a great idea, you can make mistakes and won’t be made to feel silly – or get the sack!’’

 

‘It’s great being able to talk to all the different people to find out what they do without feeling that you’re being a nuisance and asking stupid questions.’

 

The researchers describe this element as:

“Authentic fail safe environment – learners felt very confident in these virtual worlds. They were able to make mistakes in realistic scenarios without the high consequences of the real world.”

 

Ufi Ready to Work!

Failing to win

 

In the learning game you really must fail to win however current practice in training and education is at odds with this approach. Our brains are configured to learn from errors. Evidence from practice and behavioural studies has demonstrated the benefits of safe failure to learning performance. Safe failure is not just the ability to make mistakes in an application. It requires clear feedback, an explicit encouragement of error making, support in error handling, learner control and light guidance. It is especially beneficial in complex tasks and can be highly motivating to learners.

 

Video games show us the way in embracing safe failure. ILS can incorporate high degrees of physical, psychological and functional fidelity in learning applications. They provide learner control, context, exploration, high interactivity and detailed performance monitoring. They are ideal formats to drive the benefits of safe failure into mainstream education and training. Now we just need to make it happen.