Decider: Consequences

It's easiest to do what we've always done, or what everyone expects. But is it best for the learners and the topic?

If the activity deals with a complex, controversial issue, consider delaying the consequence and encouraging discussion.

It's easy to track an activity that's completed in one sitting. But is it best for the learners and the topic? If the activity deals with a complex, controversial issue, consider delaying the consequence and encouraging discussion.

Also consider looking more closely at your LMS to see if it can deliver activities and consequences separately, or talk to marketing staff to see if they have an email marketing tool that supports branching.

Delaying the consequence could build anticipation and help people think more deeply, and it gives them time to discuss a controversial topic. But if your activity deals with something more straightforward, learners might see a delayed consequence as an unnecessary complication. You might want to first test this approach on a subset of learners.

Are you sure that players will need or want to be told how they're doing before they see the consequence of their choice? It's much more natural to first continue the story, then optionally offer some advice.

If you interrupt the story with advice, you could give the impression that you think the learners can't figure anything out on their own.

Are you sure that every player must be told what they've done well or poorly? It's likely that many people will be able to draw conclusions from the story and not need to be explicitly told. If you assume that everyone needs this kind of feedback, you risk harming their motivation by disregarding their need for autonomy and competence. Consider making the feeback optional instead.

Are you sure that players will need to be told whether they've made a good choice before they can see the consequence of that choice? They'll be more engaged and will think more deeply if you first continue the story and let them draw conclusions, and only then offer advice.

You risk slowing down the story if you interrupt at every decision to tell the player how they're doing, even if it's optional. You also risk giving the impression that you think the players need to have everything explained to them, which can damage their sense of autonomy and competence.

Consider offering "telling" feedback at the end of the scenario, not at every decision point.

Are you sure that every player must be told what they've done well or poorly? It's likely that many people will be able to draw conclusions from the story and not need to be explicitly told.

If you assume that everyone needs this kind of feedback, you risk harming their motivation by disrespecting their need for autonomy and competence. Consider making the feeback optional instead.

Are you sure that you want to force people to go back and make a better choice? Ideally, your consequence made clear that the choice they made was sub-optimal, and if the story doesn't make clear why, you could provide optional "telling" feedback to explain it.

When an adult is forced to go back and do something "correctly," they could feel patronized and mistrusted.

Mini-scenarios can be useful test questions. However, if you haven't already, consider first providing "exploratory" scenarios that allow players to try different decisions and learn from the consequences.

Do you really need to score the player's decisions? It might be better to let them explore different options and learn from the consequences, rather than giving them a score as if they're in school.

It probably is unrealistic to turn back the clock and change your decision. But people learn by experimenting, and if we don't give players the chance to see what would happen with different choices, we could limit their learning.

If this were a branching scenario, it would make more sense to require people to accept their decision, because you can give them chances to recover from their mistake.

Are you sure that you want to force people to go back and make a better choice? Ideally, your consequence made clear that the choice they made was sub-optimal, and if the story doesn't make clear why, you could provide optional "telling" feedback to explain it.

When an adult is forced to go back and do something "correctly," they could feel patronized and mistrusted.

Requiring players to recognize and recover from their mistakes is a great use for branching scenarios. When you plot the scenario, make sure to provide "redemption" paths that let people recover from poor choices.

Do you really need to score the player's decisions? It might be better to let them explore different options and learn from the consequences, rather than giving them a score like they're in school.

A branching scenario that's scored can be used to assess learners, but if you haven't done so already, I encourage you to first provide some exploratory scenarios that help people learn from experimentation.