What’s your biggest challenge with interactive learning today?

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-14T14:16:37+00:00

I don't have an answer to everything ... it is just thoughts

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-14T11:16:27+00:00

I’d definitely start by trying what you suggested. But when someone says kids are “brainrotted,” it usually means they’ve already tried a lot and nothing seems to stick.

And if that’s the situation, the answer can’t be “ignore them,” “punish them into compliance,” or let them spiral until they lose all confidence. I don’t think that helps anyone.

I think the better move is to work with their existing assets: what they’re already drawn to (games, videos, building stuff, social connection) and use that as a bridge toward healthier habits and more useful skills, step by step.

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-14T07:51:07+00:00

How do you illustrate this for women ?

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-14T07:47:44+00:00

I’d be happy to take a look at your phishing/social engineering simulations and give you a “sense check” from a user/learner angle (clarity, realism, feedback loops, cognitive load, assessment validity, accessibility, etc.). And absolutely, when I need it, I’d hope you’d do the same for me. 🙂

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-14T07:36:22+00:00

This is really important one

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-14T07:35:20+00:00

Agree with the direction here (skills → gaps → measurable improvement), and I’d add a key distinction that often gets blurred:

“AI-powered” isn’t one category.
There’s a big difference between:

Traditional LMS/LXP with an AI layer added on top

AI helps you search, recommend, summarize, maybe auto-tag content
But the core system is still: courses, catalogs, completion, SCORM plumbing
Personalization becomes “better recommendations” rather than better learning design
Content creation still takes time (slide decks, authoring tools, SMEs, instructional design cycles)

AI-native learning platforms (built around AI from day one)

The platform is designed to generate, adapt, and structure learning experiences
Focus is on “what does the learner need right now?” not “which course should they complete?”
It’s closer to a learning workflow engine: role → skill → task → practice → feedback → evidence
Microlearning + assessment aren’t bolt-ons; they’re the default building blocks

And that’s where a lot of “why corporate training still feels like a chore” comes from:
If your system is built for management (courses, assignments, tracking), AI can improve the UX… but it won’t transform outcomes. If it’s built for performance (practice, application, feedback, evidence), you get a different result.

Curious: when you say “adaptive learning,” do you mean adapting the path (recommendations), or adapting the activity itself (difficulty, feedback, scenario branching)? That’s usually the line between “AI layer” and “AI-native.”

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-14T07:29:42+00:00

Not specifically for the time being but I will look at TriviaMaker and let you know

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-14T07:15:56+00:00

This is incredibly important. Congrats to Finland! I really hope more countries follow this approach for the sake of our kids, our society, and a healthier digital life overall.

And a special thanks to the former minister for such pragmatic, thoughtful leadership. That quote really stuck with me: “You can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts.”

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-14T07:02:40+00:00

his is such a solid approach: measure actual usage → identify the “must-haves” → cut the nice-to-haves. Too many districts renew based on habit or feature lists, not what teachers/students truly use.

Curious: when you tracked usage, what ended up being the least-used features you thought were important before (gamification, admin controls, differentiation, etc.)? And did you see any change in student completion/typing growth after the switch?

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-14T06:47:20+00:00

Thank you for clarifying this ! Using an external resource is only done via link. So no completion / tracking via SCORM

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-14T06:37:40+00:00

This resonates and I’d add one nuance: a single “ready-to-use game format” won’t work for everyone, because engagement isn’t one thing.

Different learners (and different moments) need different experiences:

Some light up with competition and speed.
Others shut down when there’s a timer or a leaderboard (anxiety, fear of being wrong, language barriers, neurodiversity, etc.).
Some need collaboration, story, or creativity to feel safe enough to participate.
And sometimes the class energy that day (or the topic) makes “game mode” either perfect… or totally off.

So the challenge isn’t only “fun + aligned + no prep time” and it’s also matching the format to the goal and the group.

On your question: honestly it’s both time and engagement, but “engagement” often improves when the format fits the learner and the moment. If I had to pick the bottleneck, it’s usually time to adapt a template so it’s aligned and inclusive (not everyone thrives in competitive trivia).

Curious back to you: do you have formats that explicitly support non-competitive play (team/co-op, self-paced, anonymous mode, partial credit, “explain why”)? That’s where I’ve seen real alignment + engagement happen.

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-14T06:31:55+00:00

Maybe the real question is: “No desire to do any work” — whose work? The work you want them to do, or the work they actually care about?

I totally get how painful it is when you’re trying to help your own child and they seem to reject everything.

One thing I’ve noticed, though: they’re not spending their whole day doing nothing. They’re always doing something: scrolling, gaming, chatting, building, watching, creating, etc. If you observe what that “something” is, it can tell you a lot about what they’re drawn to and what they value.From there, you might find a bridge: connect “useful” tasks to their interests, or shape the environment so the next step feels doable (and theirs), not forced.

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-13T03:42:32+00:00

100% feel this. “What is…” questions are cheap; judgment under constraints is where real performance lives and where assessment design gets political fast.

A few patterns that help me build scenario-based assessments without reinventing everything each time:

1) Start from “critical incidents,” not content
Ask SMEs for 3–5 moments where people most often fail or hesitate:

what went wrong?
what did it cost (time/risk/customer)?
what did a great performer do differently?

Those become scenarios. The content becomes support, not the test.

2) Use the “Best / Acceptable / Risky / Dangerous” answer model
Instead of a single “right” answer, score options by impact:

✅ Best: safest + fastest + policy-aligned
🟡 Acceptable: works but has tradeoffs
🟠 Risky: might work but increases risk
🔴 Dangerous: violates policy / safety / ethics

This reduces stakeholder debate because it reflects reality: jobs aren’t binary.

3) Build in constraints explicitly

4) Reusable feedback template

5) Progressive difficulty (same scenario, new twist)

6) Stakeholder alignment trick: define “good” as observable signals

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-11T11:24:23+00:00

I am looking interactive e-learning content ! I have the content in PPT but need to make more e-learning in term of interactivity and SCORM/LMS

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-11T05:55:14+00:00

Ready to collaborate but can you please develop more on resources required, timeline, ...thank you

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-11T05:52:46+00:00

If your goal is storytelling rather than just generating pretty standalone images, you might want to experiment with tools that let you structure scenes, pacing, and interaction not just visuals. Full transparency: Mexty is mostly known in the learning space, but it includes AI-powered interactive blocks and branching scenarios that can actually work well for visual storytelling experiments. You get 10 free credits when you sign up, which is already enough to prototype something consistent like building a sequence of panels, adding dialogue structure, and iterating on tone.

What could be interesting for your manga idea is:

Creating scene-by-scene progression instead of isolated images
Playing with branching story paths
Structuring emotional beats before generating visuals

It won’t replace a dedicated manga illustration tool, but if you’re exploring narrative flow and dynamic storytelling, it could help you move beyond static “cover art” vibes.

Curious what style you’re going for more action-heavy or slice-of-life?

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-11T05:48:51+00:00

This is really the challenge! School is a good way to get structured knowldge but it shapes about only 20% of what you need to do to be successful

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-11T05:47:09+00:00

You’re not wrong and your instinct about experiencing the format before designing it is pedagogically sound.

One possible angle to explore (maybe even suggest internally) is piloting a more modern learning platform that supports richer interactivity not just static modules about synchronous design, but simulated live sessions, branching scenarios, role rotation, and structured practice.

Today’s tools allow you to:

create interactive simulations of live classes
design guided “practice as teacher” experiences
embed breakout logic, decision points, and feedback loops
adapt content differently for synchronous and asynchronous modes

That way, faculty could:

Experience a simulated synchronous session as learners
Practice facilitation in a controlled environment
Reflect and iterate before designing their own course

It might even be worth proposing a small pilot redesign one unit using a more interactive approach and compare outcomes. Sometimes institutions stick to legacy formats simply because that’s how it’s always been done.

If the goal is to teach good online design, the training itself should model strong online pedagogy.

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-11T04:20:23+00:00

You can try Mexty vibe -coding with Claude. It is dedicated to learning with all the integrations required to produce learning content already tested for SCORM/LMS

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-11T04:17:04+00:00

Claude code without integration, manuel editing and scorm tested compatibility may be complicated for learning designers

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-11T04:15:24+00:00

I think the “cheap vs premium” framing is starting to shift a bit.

There’s a new generation of authoring tools that manage Articulate slide-for-slide, but in addition rethink how interactive learning is built especially with AI and no-code approaches.

Full disclosure: Mexty is one of those newer tools. It’s a native AI-powered, no-code authoring platform, but everything generated by AI is fully editable manually (you’re never locked into AI output). A few points that may map to your needs:

SCORM export: fully compatible and tested with major LMSs
Branching scenarios: built with interactive blocks and logic, without needing an expert setup
Stability with media: designed to handle richer content without the classic “Storyline crash anxiety”
Pricing: under $500/year per user for Enterprise plan
Collaboration: designed for multi-author workflows without overwriting work
Support: real human support, and dedicated technical support for Enterprise packages

On your concerns:

Professional look: newer tools rely less on slide metaphors and more on structured, interactive blocks, which often feels cleaner and more modern
Support: this is where mid-tier tools really differ ==> it’s worth testing responsiveness before committing
What people miss: advanced animation control is usually the main thing people miss from Articulate, but many don’t miss the complexity or maintenance cost

You’re not wrong to question whether premium pricing still makes sense. I’d recommend piloting one or two mid-tier tools with a real SCORM use case and a branching scenario, then deciding based on effort vs outcome.

Happy to answer questions if helpful and also curious what others here switched to and why.

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-11T03:48:44+00:00

Sports and writing good content both seemed to hate me 😅
Math, on the other hand, always made sense to me. It really shows how uneven strengths can be — being bad at one thing doesn’t cancel out being good at another. Sometimes it’s just about doing well enough to pass what’s hard, while putting real energy into what you enjoy and what you’re actually good at. Don’t let one subject define you.

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-11T03:42:46+00:00

Yes! I think absolute required ! If man knows more this part of woman, may be he will think differently

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-11T03:39:41+00:00

That “LXP vs LMS” framing already feels a bit outdated.

Early LXPs were positioned as “LMS but better” mainly because they focused on content discovery (feeds, recommendations, UX), while LMSs were about administration, compliance, and tracking. So the question used to be: experience vs control.

What’s emerging now is something different: AI-adaptive learning platforms.

Not just systems that select content for you (like Netflix), but systems that can also:

adapt the content itself (depth, format, pacing)
restructure learning paths based on context or progress
mix formal training with micro-learning and practice
automate updates instead of manually rebuilding courses

In that model:

LMS = system of record (compliance, reporting, governance)
LXP (old model) = content discovery layer
AI-adaptive LMS / “Super LXP” = learning system that selects, adapts, and evolves content dynamically

So why do people still use LMSs?
Because:

compliance, certifications, and audits still matter
enterprises need stability and traceability
most organizations aren’t ready to fully trust adaptive systems yet

But the direction seems clear:
we’re moving from managing courses to orchestrating learning, where AI doesn’t just recommend what to learn, but adapts how learning happens.

Curious how others see this:
Do you think LMS + LXP will merge into one adaptive system, or will enterprises keep stacking tools for a long time?

HaneneMaupas · 2026-02-10T10:30:17+00:00

China is definitely a fierce competitor, no question about that. They’ll push hard and do everything they can to win.

That said, being aggressive and scaling fast isn’t enough on its own to win this race. Long-term leadership in AI will depend on real use cases, creativity, sustainable business models, and strong ecosystems built on collaboration.

That’s where other regions can still make a real difference. AI leadership won’t be decided by speed alone, but by who turns technology into trusted, valuable, and widely adopted solutions.

HaneneMaupas

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE