OU blog

Personal Blogs

Christopher Douce

Retro learning technology

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Christopher Douce, Wednesday, 21 July 2010, 18:15

A photograph of a speak and spell toy

I was recently told about a conference called Game Based Learning.  Although I wasn't able to attend in person (and besides, my main research interests are perhaps somewhat tangential to the topic), the subject remains of perpetual interest.   One of my colleagues, Liam Green-Hughes, who was lucky enough to be there a couple of weeks ago has written a comprehensive blog post describing some of the themes and presentations.

The appearance of this conference made me begin to reflect on my own experiences of what 'game based learning' means to me.  It soon struck me that much of my experiences are from an earlier generation of learning technologies (and I'm not just talking about books!)  This post represents a personal history (perhaps a 'retro' history) of using a number of different 'learning' games and devices.  I hope, for some, it evokes some fun memories!

Early mobile learning

My first exposure to mobile learning (or learning games) was through a device called Spelling B made by Texas Instruments (now more famous for their DSP processors).

The device presented a truly multi-modal experience.  Not only did it contain an alphabetic keyboard, it was also adorned with bright colours and came complete with a picture book.  Quite a proportion of the picture book was initially unfathomable since you had to translate the pictures into correctly spelt words.

For quite a long time after using the device, I continued to spell 'colour' incorrectly (or correctly, depending upon your point of view), and believed that all people with peaked hats (who were not witches) were Pilgrims (the historical importance of which was totally lost on a naive British child).

If you spelt some words correctly you got a chirpy bleeping (or buzzing) tune.  If you spelt something incorrectly, you were presented with a darker rasping noise.

After around two months of playing, it was game over.  I was able to spell, by rote, the one hundred and twenty seven words (or close to it), none of which probably had more than eight characters.

One Christmas I was lucky enough to graduate to the more elegantly designed and ultimately more mind blowing Speak and Spell (wikipedia).  It was astonishing to learn that something with batteries could speak to you!  Complete with integral handle, rugged membrane board (which you could spill your orange squash onto), an audio connection to prevent parents from going potty (like mine did), and a battery charge length that would put any modern laptop to shame.  In my view, the Speak and Spell is a design triumph and you might be able to see some similarities with the OLPC XO computer (if you squint hard enough).

To this day, I remember (without looking at simulations) its rhythmic incantations of 'that is correct! And now spell...' which punctuated my own personal successes and failures.

Learning technology envy

This era of retro learning technology didn't end with the Speak and Spell.  One Christmas, Santa gave a group of kids down my street a mobile device called the Little Professor, also from Texas Instruments.  Pre-dating the Nintendo DS by decades, this little hand-held beauty presented a true advance in learning technology.  When you got a calculation right, the little professors' moustache started to jump around in animated delight.  It also incidentally had one of those new fangled Liquid Crystal Display screens rather than the battery hungry LED readouts (but this was inconsequential in comparison to the hilarious moustache).

Learning technology envy was a real phenomenon.  I remember a Texas Instruments Speak and Maths devices was undoubtedly more exciting (and desirable to play with) than a lowly Little Professor.  Game based learning was a reality, and parent pester power was definitely at work.  For those kids who had parents who were well off, the nadir of learning technology envy (when I was growing up) manifested itself in the form of the programmable and mysterious Big Trak.

Big Trak inspired a huge amount of wonderment, especially for those of us who had never been near a logo turtle.  The marketing was good as the advertisements of the time (video) testify.  It presented kids the opportunity to consider the challenge of creating stored programs.

Learning with the Atari

A number of my peers were Atari 2600 gamers.  As well as being enthralled at the prospect of blasting aliens, driving racing cars and battling with dragons represented by pixels the size of a small coins, I gradually became aware of a range of educational games that some retailers were starting to sell.

A number of educational Sesame Street game cartridges were created, presumably with close collaboration wit Atari.  I personally found them rather tedious and somewhat unexciting, but an interesting innovation was the presence of a specially designed 'Kids controller'.  Each game was provided with a colourful overlay which only presented the buttons that should be used.  (As was the case with some Atari games, the box art and instructions leaflets could be arguably more exciting than the game itself).

I have no real idea whether any substantial evaluations were carried out to assess either the user experience of these products, or whether they helped to develop motor control.

Behold!  The personal computer...

My first memory of an educational game that was presented through a personal computer was a business game that ran on the BBC Model B.  The scenario was that you were the owner of a candy floss store (an obvious attraction for kids) and you had to buy raw materials (sugar) and hope that the weather was good.  If it was good, you made money.  If it was bad, you didn't.  I must add I used this game when Thatcherism was at its peak.  This incidental memory connects with wider issues relating to the link between game deployment and wider educational policy, but I digress...

Whilst using the 'candy floss game' I don't have any recollection of having to spend extra money for petrol for the generator or have to pay the council rent (or contend with issues of price rises every year) but I'm sure there was a cost category called 'overheads' that featured somwhere.  I'm also pretty sure you could set you own prices of your products and be introduced to the notion of 'breaking even'.

The BBC Model B figured again in my later education when I discovered a business studies lab that was packed with the things, and an occasional Domesday machine, running on an exotically modified BBC Master 128.  The Domesday project pointed firmly towards the future.  I remember a lunch hour passing in a flash whilst I attempted to navigate through an animated three dimensional exhibition that represented a portal to a range of different encyclopaedic themes.

During business studies classes we didn't use the Beebs (as they were colloquially known) for candy floss stall simulations, but instead we used a program called Edword (educational word processor), a spreadsheet and a simple database program.  When we were not using these applications, we were using the luxury of disk drive to play Elite (wikipedia).  A magical galaxy drawn in glorious 3D wireframe taught us about commodity trading and law enforcement.

Sir Clive

For a while the Sinclair Spectrum (a firm favorite amongst my peers) was sold with a bonus pack of cassettes.  Two memorable ones included an application called Make-A-Chip which allowed you to draw sets of logic gate circuits.  You couldn't do much more than create a binary adder, but messing around with it for a couple of hours  really helped when it came to understanding these operators when it came to working with real programming languages.

I also have recollections of using a simulation program that allowed you to become a fox or a rabbit (or something else) and forage for food.  As the seasons (and years) change, the availability of food fluctuated due to 'natural' changes in population.  I never did get the hang of that game: it was a combination of being too slow and not having sufficiently engaging feedback for it to be attractive.

Assessing their impact

If I was asked whether I learnt anything by using the beeping and speaking mobile devices that were mentioned earlier, I couldn't give you an honest answer.  I suspect I probably did, and the biggest challenge that researchers face isn't necessarily designing a new technology (which is a challenge that many people grossly underestimate), but understanding the effect the introduction that a particular technology has, and ultimately, whether it facilitates learning.

There is, of course, also a social side to playing learning games (and I write this without any sense of authority!).  I remember my peers showing me how to use a Little Professor, and looking at an on-screen 'candy floss sales' graph at feeling thoroughly puzzled at what was being presented to me.  A crowd of us used to play that game.  Some players, I seem to remember, were more agressive traders than others.

Towards the future

History has yielded an interesting turn of events.  I spent many a happy hour messing around on a BBC Model B (albeit mostly playing Elite) and later marveled at its ultimate successor, the Acorn Archimedes (some of the time playing Zarch written by the same author as Elite).

I remember my fascination at discovering it was possible to write programs using the BBC Basic programming language (version 5) without using line numbers.  Acorn computer eventually folded but left a lasting legacy in the form of ARM (Acorn Risc Machine), a company that sells its processor designs which have found their way into a whole range of different devices: phones, MP3 players, PDAs.

I recently heard that the designers of the One Laptop Per Child project were considering using ARM-based processors in the second generation designs.  The reason for this choice is directed by the need to pay careful consideration to power consumption and the fact that the current processor will not be subject to further on-going development by AMD. (One loosely connected cul-de-sac of history lies with the brief emergence of the inspirational and sadly ill fated Apple eMate, which was also ARM-based).

One dimension of learning games that is outside the immediate requirements of developing skills or knowledge in a particular subject, lies with their potential to engender motivation and enthusiasm.

It's surprising how long electricity powered educational video games and devices have been around for.  It's also surprising that it was possible to do so much with so little (in terms of processing power and memory).  Educational gaming, I argue, should not be considered as an idea that is considered to be revolutionary.  I personally look forwards to learning about what new evolutionary developments are waiting for us around the corner and what they may be able to tell us about how we learn.

Share post
Christopher Douce

Learning technology and return on investment

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Christopher Douce, Wednesday, 21 July 2010, 18:13

Image of a man playing a tired old piano in front of a building site that has warning signes.  One says, 'danger, men working overhead'.

A couple of years ago I attended a conference held by the Association of Learning Technology (ALT).  I remember a riveting keynote that asked the members of the audience to consider not only the design and the structure of new learning technologies, but also the benefits that they can offer institutions, particularly in terms of costs.  I remember being reminded that technology (in terms of educational technology) need not be something that is considered in terms of 'high technology'.  A technology could be a bunch of cards tied to a desk chair!

I came away with a message that it is important to try to assess the effectiveness of systems that we construct, and not to get ahead of ourselves in terms of building systems that might not do the job they set out to do, or in fact may even end up solving the wrong problem.

When attending the learning technologies exhibition a couple of months ago the notions of 'return on investment' and 'efficiency' were never too far away.  E-learning, it is argued, can help companies to develop training capacities quickly and efficiently and allow company employees to prepare for change.

I might have been mistaken but I think I may have heard the occasional presenter mentioning some figures.  The presenters were saying things like, 'if you implement our system in this way, it can help you save a certain number of millions of pounds, dollars or euros per year'.  Such proclamations made me wonder, 'how do you go about measuring the return on investment into e-learning systems?' (or any other learning technology system, for that matter).

I do not profess to be an expert in this issue by any means.  I am aware that there have been many others (who have greater levels of expertise than myself) have both blogged and written about this issue at some length.  I hope by sharing my own meagre notes on the subject might make a small contribution to the debate.

Measuring usefulness

Let's say you build a learning technology or an e-learning tool.  You might create an on-line discussion forum or even a hand held classroom response system.  You might have created it with a particular problem (or pedagogic practice) in mind.  When you have built it, it might be useful to determine whether the learning technology helps learners to learn and acquire new understandings and knowledge.

One way of conducting an evaluation is to ask them about their experience.  This can allow you to understand how it worked, whether it was liked, what themes were learnt and what elements of a system, product or process might have inspired learners.

Another way to determine whether a technology is affective is to perform a test.  You could take two groups, one that has access to the new technology, the other who do not, and see which group perform better.  Of course, such an approach can open up a range of interesting ethical issues that need to be carefully negotiated and conquered.

Dimensions of measurement

When it comes to large e-learning systems the questions that can uncover learners experience can relate to a 'low level' understanding of how learning technologies are used and applied.  Attempting to measure the success of a learning technology or e-learning system for a whole department or institution could be described as a 'high level' understanding.  It is this 'high level' of understanding that relates to the theme of how much money a system may help to save (or cost) an organisation.

Bearing in mind that organisations are very unlikely to carry out experiments, how is it possible to determine how much return on investment an e-learning system might give you?  This is a really tough question to ask since it depends totally on the objectives of a system.  The approach taken to measure the return on investment of a training system is likely to be different to one that has been used to instil institutional values or create new ways of working (which may or may not yield employee productivity improvements).

When considering the issue of e-learning systems that aim to train (I'm going to try to steer clear of the debates around what constitutes training and what constitutes education), the questions that you might ask include:

  • What are the current skills (or knowledge base) of your personnel?
  • What are the costs inherent in developing a training solution?
  • What are the costs inherent in rolling this out to those who need access?

Another good question to ask is: what would you have to do to find out the same information if you had not invested in the new technologies?  A related question is: would there be any significant travel costs attached to finding out the information?, and, would it be possible to measure the amount of disruption that might take place if you have to ask other people for the information that you require?

These questions relate to actions that can be measured.  If you can put a measure on the costs of finding out key pieces of information before and after the implementation of a system, you might be able to edge towards figuring out the value of the system that you have implemented.  What, for example, is the cost of running the same face to face training course every year as opposed to creating a digital equivalent that is supported by a forum that is supported by an on-line moderator?  You need to factor in issues such as how much time it might take for a learner to take the course.  Simply providing an on-line course is not enough.  Its provision needs to be supported and endorsed by the organisation that has decided to sponsor the development of e-learning.

The above group of points represents a rather simplistic view.  The introduction of a learning technology system may also facilitate the development of new opportunities that were perhaps not previously possible.  'Up skilling' (or whatever it is called) in a limited amount of time may enable employees to respond to a business opportunity that may not have been able to exploited without the application of e-learning.

Other themes

Learning technologies are not only about the transmission of information (and knowledge) between a training department and their employees.  They can also have a role to play in facilitating the development of a common culture and strengthening bonds between work groups.

Instances of success (or failure) can be shared between fellow employees. Details of new initiatives or projects may be disseminated through a learning system.  The contents of the learning system, as a result, may gradually change as a result of such discussions.

The wider cultural perspectives that surround the application of learning technologies, in my humble opinion, are a lot harder to quantify.  It's hard to put a value on the use a technology to share information (and learning experiences) with your co-workers.

Related resources

A quick search takes me to the wikipedia definition of ROI and I'm immediately overwhelmed by detail that leaves my head spinning.

Further probing reveals a blog entitled ROI and Metrics in eLearning by Tony Karrer who kindly provides a wealth of links (some of which were updated in April 2008).  I have also uncovered a report entitled What Return on Investment does e-Learning Provide? (dated July 2005) (pdf) prepared by SkillSoft found on a site called e-Learning Centre.


The issue of e-learning and learning technology return on investment is one that appears to be, at a cursory glance, one that can be quite difficult to understand thoroughly.  Attaching numbers to the costs and benefits of any learning technology is something that is difficult to well or precisely.  This can be partly attributed to the nature of software: often, so much of the costs (whether it be in terms of administration or maintenance) or benefits (ability to find things out quicker and collaborate with new people) can be hidden amongst detail that needs to be made clearly explicit to be successfully understood.

When it comes to designing, building and deploying learning technology systems, the idea of return on investment is undoubtedly a useful concept, but those investing in systems should consider issues beyond the immediately discoverable costs and benefits since there are likely to be others lurking in the background just waiting to be discovered.

Acknowledgements: Image licensed under creative commons, liberated via Flickr from Mr Squee.  Piano busker in front of building site represents two types of investments: a long term investment (as represented by the hidden building site), and a short term investment (using the decrepit piano to busk).  The unheard music represents hidden complexities.

Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 2139778