Archive for the ‘Educational Games’ Category
Opt In Effort Design
If a person holds self back, they will not fully experience a situation. This is where the adage "You get out of it what you put into it." When living by fear you hold back on the chance that the experience is bad and so you don't want to fully experience it. However this means you will get little benefit out of anything.
Whether I am designing a game or learning situation I still count it as user experience design, and so it seems logical to design an opt in part.
What's This About?
It's not about the possible misuse.
It's not about the actions or results.
It's about practice and experience.
It's about learning and growth.
If you want people to do, then you should train them by having them do. There is plenty of things that are done in schools, but the real world doing is reserved for those who have proved themselves in some way. This doesn't make sense as a general teaching approach. You don't learn while memorizing. They are two totally different actions.
Where's the fun?
Depends on the fun you are talking about, but I think fun generally comes from DOing something. Maybe that's just me. By taking on new identities and not just memorizing what other people have done you can have a more full learning experience, but it takes more than a little opt in to get there.
Learning and understanding require knowledge and dedication of self. Many things are not fun without a decent amount of personal dedication, and the knowledge needed to DO.
It's like stepping up to the plate. Sure, you swing and miss only to swing and miss again, but then comes the time where after trying and observing you learn and understand. Stepping up to the plate you pick up the bat with confidense and determination. The results don't matter, because the effort is all that's on your mind. Without reservation you swing the bat. Even missing the first two times means nothing, except that you will have to swing a third time. This is the time where trying and testing really count, because it has meaning to you. If you miss the third time, it would be disappointing, but to hit the ball out of the park is the point.
Who's helping out?
Those charged with helping people learn need to look for those stepping up to the plate and use their feedback appropriately. Positive and negative feedback can be used to not only help people reach this point, but also to make the most of these times.
Sure, it's not easy, but it's worth the effort. Getting to know all those students and learning about each of them enough to build a quality relationship. Then cultivating their creativity, showing that they matter and getting them to continue to try all take effort. Sometimes though, it's as easy as stepping out of the way and watching the student shine. Knowing when to give an opportunity, to push them harder and/or step out of the way is as much a part of this as helping students get to that point. In fact it may be more important as being able to identify success makes it easier to see what contributes to it.
Where to now?
A classic saying that encapsulates the reasons for opt-in design is, "Fake it till you make it." Another is, "Practice makes perfect." The first is geared more towards the motivation side of things and the second is more inline with results.
One of the pieces of advice I've heard several times about getting a job is to already being doing the work. The motivation for learning is usually to accomplish some goal. Trying, failing, improving and trying again shows the improvement, or lack there-of. This gives a way to judge training effectiveness. Think about the two phrases and how experience mixes with knowledge to become learning.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Whether I am designing a game or learning situation I still count it as user experience design, and so it seems logical to design an opt in part.
What's This About?
It's not about the possible misuse.
It's not about the actions or results.
It's about practice and experience.
It's about learning and growth.
If you want people to do, then you should train them by having them do. There is plenty of things that are done in schools, but the real world doing is reserved for those who have proved themselves in some way. This doesn't make sense as a general teaching approach. You don't learn while memorizing. They are two totally different actions.
Where's the fun?
Depends on the fun you are talking about, but I think fun generally comes from DOing something. Maybe that's just me. By taking on new identities and not just memorizing what other people have done you can have a more full learning experience, but it takes more than a little opt in to get there.
Learning and understanding require knowledge and dedication of self. Many things are not fun without a decent amount of personal dedication, and the knowledge needed to DO.
It's like stepping up to the plate. Sure, you swing and miss only to swing and miss again, but then comes the time where after trying and observing you learn and understand. Stepping up to the plate you pick up the bat with confidense and determination. The results don't matter, because the effort is all that's on your mind. Without reservation you swing the bat. Even missing the first two times means nothing, except that you will have to swing a third time. This is the time where trying and testing really count, because it has meaning to you. If you miss the third time, it would be disappointing, but to hit the ball out of the park is the point.
Who's helping out?
Those charged with helping people learn need to look for those stepping up to the plate and use their feedback appropriately. Positive and negative feedback can be used to not only help people reach this point, but also to make the most of these times.
Sure, it's not easy, but it's worth the effort. Getting to know all those students and learning about each of them enough to build a quality relationship. Then cultivating their creativity, showing that they matter and getting them to continue to try all take effort. Sometimes though, it's as easy as stepping out of the way and watching the student shine. Knowing when to give an opportunity, to push them harder and/or step out of the way is as much a part of this as helping students get to that point. In fact it may be more important as being able to identify success makes it easier to see what contributes to it.
Where to now?
A classic saying that encapsulates the reasons for opt-in design is, "Fake it till you make it." Another is, "Practice makes perfect." The first is geared more towards the motivation side of things and the second is more inline with results.
One of the pieces of advice I've heard several times about getting a job is to already being doing the work. The motivation for learning is usually to accomplish some goal. Trying, failing, improving and trying again shows the improvement, or lack there-of. This gives a way to judge training effectiveness. Think about the two phrases and how experience mixes with knowledge to become learning.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Are Games REALLY the Problem?
I've never liked the view that media is the problem. That's not to say that there aren't problems with the media that's made, but rather that it's not the REAL problem that needs to be dealt with.
'As Sid puts it, “the player shouldn’t have to read the same books the designer has read in order to be able to play.”' - http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=119
This got me thinking along the lines of two previous posts. One is about improving the user to improve the system (Oops, I have to finish this one.) and the other is about what real serious game design. It seems to me that the problem might be a combination of people only wanting to play, as in the truly not being open to learning more or expending time and effort to improve, and that people expect the systems to make it so there are no consequences to the former.
Design Challenges
While reading a section of the post ( http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=119 ) called "One Good Game is Better than Two Great Ones" I found myself disagreeing with the tone, till I read the second half of the section. In the first half it talks about having two main concepts fighting for the top place in the design. The second half talks about mixing them to the benefit, rather than detriment, of the gameplay.
Seemed like designers saying we have to make the games simple to do it well, even though that isn't really what's meant in the post. I have seen this view before. First, this is due to marketing and business, not game design. Second, it's a matter of skill and creativity to get big ideas to properly coexist. Third, smaller games are easier to finish and produce. So, I do understand where some people are coming from. It's just not my preference most of the time. As stated in the post, "sometimes multiple games can co-exist in harmony with each other." ( http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=119 )
See, I find it insulting to be told as a gamer and designer that game should be simpler. As a gamer I expect to be pushed in games. Even something as nice and friendly as a farming game has consequences. Treating your animals and crops badly means you will get a small return. So, you are pushed to improve your farming and ranching skills and performance to get better results. I want to create such games that push the players. In the example game from the section, intense action and "an involved mystery-type plot" are put into one game. The action and clues didn't work well together in that game apparently. During the action the players seemed to have forgotten the clues and mystery.
This is the kind of thing I consider a design challenge. While it is true that you can settle for doing as mentioned in the post and tone down the action, there are other solutions.
Possible Solutions
Integrate them on a more granular level. How about having the mystery be a part of the action and the action be a part of the mystery? Where should you try to go during the action? What are the implications of the clue you just found or didn't find where it should have been? Where were the most guards? Why were they there? Could the opposing side have been misleading you? These are possible questions to present to the player to make the two play types work together. Mystery can heighten the action, and the action can provide clues to the mystery.
Make skill growth a major part of the gameplay. Perhaps you start off as a low ranking officer or agent. As you do better in the missions you get promotions. Higher ranked individuals get harder missions and access to more resources. By putting in clues and patterns into the mission generator. Maybe the mystery is optional, or even one of several. This goes into the realm of emergent stories and gameplay, but that could be a good thing.
Interesting Results
Both solutions suggested have educational results, based on assisted learning more than educating. Lots of people don't like to think. As odd a concept as that is for me, I've found it to be violently true. Feelings of security, pleasure and other preferred sensations usually take priority over things like logic, needs and reality.
The granular integration idea helps by blurring the lines. Rather than switching back and forth between thinking and doing, you switch which one is leading and which one is guiding. In the action sequences you are guided by the mystery and clues in your action choices. When the action is over, it takes a guiding role to the mystery solving. By guiding I mean advising. Which direction you go in the action sequences depends on the clues and mystery stuff. Maybe it's better to chase down the henchman, or perhaps the files and data is more important. What happens in the action is important to solving the mystery.
The job promotion and skill based growth idea goes a different direction. Instead of blurring the lines, it makes putting the pieces of the mystery together a part of determining the action. As you do better at remembering the mystery stuff despite the action, you get tools and resources that help you solve the mystery. In other words, it's a positive feedback loop. The fact that the player has trouble with keeping the mystery in mind fits the idea of being a new officer or agent. Meeting the challenge is as much a part of the gameplay as the intense action and involved mystery.
Obvious Fix
If people are having trouble remembering something, you could just remind them. Clue notebooks, communications, meetings and other options are available depending on the setting and plot. While this could mean the other ideas aren't needed, I waited to mention this know because I wanted to prove a point. There are ways to make an idea better without degrading the content. Even if the big solutions aren't available, there are usually simpler options to choose.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
'As Sid puts it, “the player shouldn’t have to read the same books the designer has read in order to be able to play.”' - http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=119
This got me thinking along the lines of two previous posts. One is about improving the user to improve the system (Oops, I have to finish this one.) and the other is about what real serious game design. It seems to me that the problem might be a combination of people only wanting to play, as in the truly not being open to learning more or expending time and effort to improve, and that people expect the systems to make it so there are no consequences to the former.
Design Challenges
While reading a section of the post ( http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=119 ) called "One Good Game is Better than Two Great Ones" I found myself disagreeing with the tone, till I read the second half of the section. In the first half it talks about having two main concepts fighting for the top place in the design. The second half talks about mixing them to the benefit, rather than detriment, of the gameplay.
Seemed like designers saying we have to make the games simple to do it well, even though that isn't really what's meant in the post. I have seen this view before. First, this is due to marketing and business, not game design. Second, it's a matter of skill and creativity to get big ideas to properly coexist. Third, smaller games are easier to finish and produce. So, I do understand where some people are coming from. It's just not my preference most of the time. As stated in the post, "sometimes multiple games can co-exist in harmony with each other." ( http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=119 )
See, I find it insulting to be told as a gamer and designer that game should be simpler. As a gamer I expect to be pushed in games. Even something as nice and friendly as a farming game has consequences. Treating your animals and crops badly means you will get a small return. So, you are pushed to improve your farming and ranching skills and performance to get better results. I want to create such games that push the players. In the example game from the section, intense action and "an involved mystery-type plot" are put into one game. The action and clues didn't work well together in that game apparently. During the action the players seemed to have forgotten the clues and mystery.
This is the kind of thing I consider a design challenge. While it is true that you can settle for doing as mentioned in the post and tone down the action, there are other solutions.
Possible Solutions
Integrate them on a more granular level. How about having the mystery be a part of the action and the action be a part of the mystery? Where should you try to go during the action? What are the implications of the clue you just found or didn't find where it should have been? Where were the most guards? Why were they there? Could the opposing side have been misleading you? These are possible questions to present to the player to make the two play types work together. Mystery can heighten the action, and the action can provide clues to the mystery.
Make skill growth a major part of the gameplay. Perhaps you start off as a low ranking officer or agent. As you do better in the missions you get promotions. Higher ranked individuals get harder missions and access to more resources. By putting in clues and patterns into the mission generator. Maybe the mystery is optional, or even one of several. This goes into the realm of emergent stories and gameplay, but that could be a good thing.
Interesting Results
Both solutions suggested have educational results, based on assisted learning more than educating. Lots of people don't like to think. As odd a concept as that is for me, I've found it to be violently true. Feelings of security, pleasure and other preferred sensations usually take priority over things like logic, needs and reality.
The granular integration idea helps by blurring the lines. Rather than switching back and forth between thinking and doing, you switch which one is leading and which one is guiding. In the action sequences you are guided by the mystery and clues in your action choices. When the action is over, it takes a guiding role to the mystery solving. By guiding I mean advising. Which direction you go in the action sequences depends on the clues and mystery stuff. Maybe it's better to chase down the henchman, or perhaps the files and data is more important. What happens in the action is important to solving the mystery.
The job promotion and skill based growth idea goes a different direction. Instead of blurring the lines, it makes putting the pieces of the mystery together a part of determining the action. As you do better at remembering the mystery stuff despite the action, you get tools and resources that help you solve the mystery. In other words, it's a positive feedback loop. The fact that the player has trouble with keeping the mystery in mind fits the idea of being a new officer or agent. Meeting the challenge is as much a part of the gameplay as the intense action and involved mystery.
Obvious Fix
If people are having trouble remembering something, you could just remind them. Clue notebooks, communications, meetings and other options are available depending on the setting and plot. While this could mean the other ideas aren't needed, I waited to mention this know because I wanted to prove a point. There are ways to make an idea better without degrading the content. Even if the big solutions aren't available, there are usually simpler options to choose.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
This is Serious Game Design!
Take it how you like; high quality game design or designing what's known as serious games. The truth is that it's both. I'll admit to being blinded by the math and science game designs that have come far more easily to mind than this kind of game design, but I know when I find quality work. It makes me want to design. Take a look for yourself at this blog post about Brenda's deep game design. That's something that doesn't just educate, it helps you learn and understand.
These are the kinds of things I look for as an artist. Yes, this is being written as an artist, not an educator, designer or anything else. Just reading about her designs and their results brings back the itch to create. I listen to the group Celtic Woman and I want to play music, sing songs and write poetry. It brings back the desire to learn, grow, push myself and most of all to create something worth the effort of creating and consuming repeatedly.
There is an art to game design and teaching that is easily lost even to the masters if they're not careful. Facts are not enough. Even video isn't enough. Let people live the history, the wonder. Yes there are topics like math and science that seem fairly cut and dry, but why not link that knowledge and those skills into the social and historical situations?
The inspiration for Brenda's design direction was teacher her daughter about the slave trade. The numbers from the school lessons distanced the tragedy from the here and now. "So she did what any game designer worth her salt would do: She made a game out of it." - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/conferences/tgc_2009/6021-TGC-2009-How-a-Board-Game-Can-Make-You-Cry
'Brathwaite assembled a collection of tiny wooden figures, then had her daughter group them into "families." After her daughter was finished, she picked them up by the handful and placed them on a makeshift boat. Her daughter was confused: Why would she take the parents but leave the baby? Why wouldn't brothers stay with their sisters? "No one wants to go," Brathwaite explained. That's when it started to click.
Then Brathwaite devised a primitive resource management mechanic. It took 10 turns for the boat to cross the Atlantic. The boat had 30 units of food. Each turn, the player had to roll a d6, and reduce their food stores by that number. By the trip's halfway point, it was clear to her daughter that her "cargo" wouldn't make it. It wasn't a "fun" game by any means, but it served a different purpose: It helped her daughter intuitively understand the emotional experience of the slave trade, a lesson that numbers on a chalkboard couldn't provide.
At that point, Brathwaite was hooked.' - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/conferences/tgc_2009/6021-TGC-2009-How-a-Board-Game-Can-Make-You-Cry
For years I've heard people saying why video games are so bad for society. I'll grant that constantly repeating violent behaviors in a way that encourages mindless slaughter is going to desensitize people. After all, look at the news and television. Their content keeps getting worse and worse, like the video games that are following suit, but that's not all video games.
Sometimes we need to be shown atrocities. We need to know they exist. When good becomes commonplace without bad, good looses its meaning. If you don't know its bad, you aren't likely to fix it. If we aren't shown the humanity of those around us, their needs, desires, faults and contributions, it becomes easy to dehumanize them in our minds. Just because somebody is different doesn't mean you are better than they are or that they are a lower form of life.
We also need to be shown hope. How about a follow-up game for the slave trade that covers the Underground Railroad? National Geographic has tried their hands at an Underground Railroad interactive experience. There is a path that leads out of such pits of despair, but usually you have to dig it yourself. That's the truth we need to share, and the fact that it can be done by those with little or nothing to start with except dedication. How about a Sims game that deals with raising public awareness of problems and community organizing?
With a couple simple mechanics Brenda brought the history to life for her daughter, and it's possible to duplicate it. One of the most repeated questions about school topics is when that knowledge will be useful in life, so why not use interactive models to shown them. In military campaigns there are a lot of logistics to be dealt with. I've seriously heard of people having trouble counting change while running a cash register. Make the problem real and interactive. Don't just tell students how it might be useful, show them.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
These are the kinds of things I look for as an artist. Yes, this is being written as an artist, not an educator, designer or anything else. Just reading about her designs and their results brings back the itch to create. I listen to the group Celtic Woman and I want to play music, sing songs and write poetry. It brings back the desire to learn, grow, push myself and most of all to create something worth the effort of creating and consuming repeatedly.
There is an art to game design and teaching that is easily lost even to the masters if they're not careful. Facts are not enough. Even video isn't enough. Let people live the history, the wonder. Yes there are topics like math and science that seem fairly cut and dry, but why not link that knowledge and those skills into the social and historical situations?
The inspiration for Brenda's design direction was teacher her daughter about the slave trade. The numbers from the school lessons distanced the tragedy from the here and now. "So she did what any game designer worth her salt would do: She made a game out of it." - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/conferences/tgc_2009/6021-TGC-2009-How-a-Board-Game-Can-Make-You-Cry
'Brathwaite assembled a collection of tiny wooden figures, then had her daughter group them into "families." After her daughter was finished, she picked them up by the handful and placed them on a makeshift boat. Her daughter was confused: Why would she take the parents but leave the baby? Why wouldn't brothers stay with their sisters? "No one wants to go," Brathwaite explained. That's when it started to click.
Then Brathwaite devised a primitive resource management mechanic. It took 10 turns for the boat to cross the Atlantic. The boat had 30 units of food. Each turn, the player had to roll a d6, and reduce their food stores by that number. By the trip's halfway point, it was clear to her daughter that her "cargo" wouldn't make it. It wasn't a "fun" game by any means, but it served a different purpose: It helped her daughter intuitively understand the emotional experience of the slave trade, a lesson that numbers on a chalkboard couldn't provide.
At that point, Brathwaite was hooked.' - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/conferences/tgc_2009/6021-TGC-2009-How-a-Board-Game-Can-Make-You-Cry
For years I've heard people saying why video games are so bad for society. I'll grant that constantly repeating violent behaviors in a way that encourages mindless slaughter is going to desensitize people. After all, look at the news and television. Their content keeps getting worse and worse, like the video games that are following suit, but that's not all video games.
Sometimes we need to be shown atrocities. We need to know they exist. When good becomes commonplace without bad, good looses its meaning. If you don't know its bad, you aren't likely to fix it. If we aren't shown the humanity of those around us, their needs, desires, faults and contributions, it becomes easy to dehumanize them in our minds. Just because somebody is different doesn't mean you are better than they are or that they are a lower form of life.
We also need to be shown hope. How about a follow-up game for the slave trade that covers the Underground Railroad? National Geographic has tried their hands at an Underground Railroad interactive experience. There is a path that leads out of such pits of despair, but usually you have to dig it yourself. That's the truth we need to share, and the fact that it can be done by those with little or nothing to start with except dedication. How about a Sims game that deals with raising public awareness of problems and community organizing?
With a couple simple mechanics Brenda brought the history to life for her daughter, and it's possible to duplicate it. One of the most repeated questions about school topics is when that knowledge will be useful in life, so why not use interactive models to shown them. In military campaigns there are a lot of logistics to be dealt with. I've seriously heard of people having trouble counting change while running a cash register. Make the problem real and interactive. Don't just tell students how it might be useful, show them.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Play to Professors
Since many want to go from professors back to play, at least in part, it makes sense to see how we got here.
Learning as we generally conceive it is a combination of information and experience. That assumes that the information and experience will work together to create learning and understanding.
The idea of a professors of information and personal experience is older than universities. It's sharing what we know and believe. Everybody does this when we try to communicate. So, having a person that is viewed as an expert in a field professing their knowledge and experience is done. Until recently in history this required in person meetings for dynamic dialogue.
Books worked well for static background information, references. Rather than having people go through the experiences, they would read about them. However, at the start of this way of teaching you commonly had students working a job. Then there were the jobs with built in training and stores of trade information.
That makes sense and works fairly well, because information is dynamically mixed with experience. That where and when the learning really happens. However, something changed.
As the results of such a combination were noted, people tried to redesign the system, to make it more efficient. Play, free-time, experience and other such non-serious/measured/hard tasks were removed as unneeded.
Think about that in light of modern schooling. Recess is a part of elementary school for exercise and to use up some of their energy. The later is to help children sit still in class. Recess is removed and physical education is left as required in middle school. In high school a fourth of my time in school I was required to take physical education. In college, I've taken one physical education class that was also half health class. Most classes are asking you to memorize a set of behaviors and then tests your execution in ritualized scenarios.
Why? Why is it that activity, creativity and spontaneity are removed from the school life? Why was it such a natural progression?
Answer: Because the original process had active, creative, spontaneous doing as an unwritten assumption.
That assumption is known to the doers. The knowers in charge of designing the system don't deal with reality, they deal with mental models. If those mental models are inaccurate, the conclusions are liable to be worse. Without knowing what the doers/masters know through experience and open minded observation, the knowers/designers are not prepared to design a school.
It's still a little vague. Why would that lead to the present situation? There is information being passed on. There is experience in school work. So what's the problem? Simply put, it's like giving potting soil, a pot, seeds and water to a person who knows nothing of gardening and asking them to garden.
Some might consider that last statement a little, or very, harsh. Well, how many people understand how they learn? Yet, the student is handed information and experience and told to learn.
Unfortunately, even that way of looking at things is too nice. The gardens we are told to create are like normal gardens; nothing like the wonderful natural beauty on the other side of the fence. Why is that garden not like the natural wonders we want to mimic? It's because we don't include the natural factors.
Learning is growing. Mess with the plant or student too much and you'll stunt it's growth. Those that do grow will either fit into the nice linear borders, or the gardeners will try to "tend" to them. Some are lucky to have gardeners who understand natural growth.
The mental models CONNOT account for everything. If you look back at what works, you'll see guidance in teaching. Guidance is not the same as leading. Students are to explore, experiment and ask questions in the old models of teaching that are STILL effective.
Wait a moment; questions. Those require activity, creativity and spontaneity. More than that, they require thinking. Obstacles and problems are expected. Their treated as potential learning experiences. Why? Because that's where the learning happens. It's also where innovation happens, but that's another topic.
Questions take time, lots of it. Patience is also needed, just like in good gardening or cooking. The student needs time to observe, consider and make mistakes. This is the mind set of play. So WHY is this such a missed part of the education when we've spent centuries trying to figure out how to teach people faster?
Did you catch that? I'll repeat the question. WHY is this such a missed part of the education when we've spent centuries trying to figure out how to teach people faster?
When you try to grow a plant faster, the plant lacks something. The stem will be weaker than a plant given time to grow naturally. The fruit will be lacking nutrients, flavor and substance.
Have you caught the problem? The goal was not to teach people to the best of our abilities, but rather the overall goal is to do so faster. Questions and deep learning do take time, in the now, not the overall. (That's yet another topic.) The students are to be "made' into "workers" as fast as possible in most systems. More and faster are generally equated to better.
That works with teaching, but not learning. You see, the faster you teach more people a set of facts and behaviors, the better you are at teaching. The faster you are taught more, the shallower and easier to forget that knowledge is. The faster you are taught more, the less you actually learn. This is because the act of teaching is the act of giving. The more you teach, the faster you get, and the less you learn. That's due to it becoming a routine. So, the faster you do that routine for more people, the less you are helping the individual students learn.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Learning as we generally conceive it is a combination of information and experience. That assumes that the information and experience will work together to create learning and understanding.
The idea of a professors of information and personal experience is older than universities. It's sharing what we know and believe. Everybody does this when we try to communicate. So, having a person that is viewed as an expert in a field professing their knowledge and experience is done. Until recently in history this required in person meetings for dynamic dialogue.
Books worked well for static background information, references. Rather than having people go through the experiences, they would read about them. However, at the start of this way of teaching you commonly had students working a job. Then there were the jobs with built in training and stores of trade information.
That makes sense and works fairly well, because information is dynamically mixed with experience. That where and when the learning really happens. However, something changed.
As the results of such a combination were noted, people tried to redesign the system, to make it more efficient. Play, free-time, experience and other such non-serious/measured/hard tasks were removed as unneeded.
Think about that in light of modern schooling. Recess is a part of elementary school for exercise and to use up some of their energy. The later is to help children sit still in class. Recess is removed and physical education is left as required in middle school. In high school a fourth of my time in school I was required to take physical education. In college, I've taken one physical education class that was also half health class. Most classes are asking you to memorize a set of behaviors and then tests your execution in ritualized scenarios.
Why? Why is it that activity, creativity and spontaneity are removed from the school life? Why was it such a natural progression?
Answer: Because the original process had active, creative, spontaneous doing as an unwritten assumption.
That assumption is known to the doers. The knowers in charge of designing the system don't deal with reality, they deal with mental models. If those mental models are inaccurate, the conclusions are liable to be worse. Without knowing what the doers/masters know through experience and open minded observation, the knowers/designers are not prepared to design a school.
It's still a little vague. Why would that lead to the present situation? There is information being passed on. There is experience in school work. So what's the problem? Simply put, it's like giving potting soil, a pot, seeds and water to a person who knows nothing of gardening and asking them to garden.
Some might consider that last statement a little, or very, harsh. Well, how many people understand how they learn? Yet, the student is handed information and experience and told to learn.
Unfortunately, even that way of looking at things is too nice. The gardens we are told to create are like normal gardens; nothing like the wonderful natural beauty on the other side of the fence. Why is that garden not like the natural wonders we want to mimic? It's because we don't include the natural factors.
Learning is growing. Mess with the plant or student too much and you'll stunt it's growth. Those that do grow will either fit into the nice linear borders, or the gardeners will try to "tend" to them. Some are lucky to have gardeners who understand natural growth.
The mental models CONNOT account for everything. If you look back at what works, you'll see guidance in teaching. Guidance is not the same as leading. Students are to explore, experiment and ask questions in the old models of teaching that are STILL effective.
Wait a moment; questions. Those require activity, creativity and spontaneity. More than that, they require thinking. Obstacles and problems are expected. Their treated as potential learning experiences. Why? Because that's where the learning happens. It's also where innovation happens, but that's another topic.
Questions take time, lots of it. Patience is also needed, just like in good gardening or cooking. The student needs time to observe, consider and make mistakes. This is the mind set of play. So WHY is this such a missed part of the education when we've spent centuries trying to figure out how to teach people faster?
Did you catch that? I'll repeat the question. WHY is this such a missed part of the education when we've spent centuries trying to figure out how to teach people faster?
When you try to grow a plant faster, the plant lacks something. The stem will be weaker than a plant given time to grow naturally. The fruit will be lacking nutrients, flavor and substance.
Have you caught the problem? The goal was not to teach people to the best of our abilities, but rather the overall goal is to do so faster. Questions and deep learning do take time, in the now, not the overall. (That's yet another topic.) The students are to be "made' into "workers" as fast as possible in most systems. More and faster are generally equated to better.
That works with teaching, but not learning. You see, the faster you teach more people a set of facts and behaviors, the better you are at teaching. The faster you are taught more, the shallower and easier to forget that knowledge is. The faster you are taught more, the less you actually learn. This is because the act of teaching is the act of giving. The more you teach, the faster you get, and the less you learn. That's due to it becoming a routine. So, the faster you do that routine for more people, the less you are helping the individual students learn.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Video Games for Meditation
Maybe a week ago I was impressed by reaching level 9 playing Bejeweled 2 Hyper mode. Then a couple days ago I reached level 11. After some thought I realized it was through a variation of active meditation, something I'd read about in a fiction novel.
Now, first off I would like to specify the variation I'm talking about. It is reaching a calm and clear mental state like that reached through martial arts. Continuous action without being slowed by seperate conscious thought. Separate is an important word in this case because there is thought, but it doesn't slow down the actions. Yet the value is learning to control ones mind and emotions.
So, let's take a look at the benefits of this and then the means to reaching the goal.
Frustration is a big problem in playing games, studying and the rest of life. Being able to manage frustration is very helpful in those cases. Yes, all of our lives. It helps reduce stress and there-by can improve your health. For the purposes of this post, it's the mental and emotional control that is important. Such control helps in not over reacting and flipping out while under stress. It also helps in activities like studying and paying attention in class.
Now, with the basic benefits out of the way, I'm sure most of you readers can see the general possibilities.
The question is of course, "How?" How do we get that to work? With my recent experience with it through a game, and realizing it, I might have some answers. So here are my observations.
1) Be good at the game.
While I had noticed a while back how I played when I played at my best, I didn't get the understanding of how to practically apply a meditative state to the game till I was fairly proficient. This is so you can play the game semi-unconsciously. I don't mean necessarily mastering the game. How good you need to be depends on you. I had to come close to mastery to use enough of my mind, which brings me to the next observation.
2) Be at your functional limit.
The natural way people grow is to come to the functional limitations of a certain method and practice at that limit. I did this when I learned to read word-by-word from letter-by-letter. The same happened when I was playing Bejeweled. Looking for a my next move after things have settled. It was just too slow at the levels I'd get to while playing. Little by little I would slide into the meditative state until I stopped paying attention to the level and speed required. Next thing I knew, I was at level eleven, about twice the level I normally stop at.
3) Play a game like Tetris or Bejeweled.
This is to facilitate observation #2. With Tetris and Bejeweled, there is a level of difficulty where you have to get into the "zone" to go farther. That means it doesn't matter much who you are, how smart you are or how good your are. The game will work for this exercise.
4) Be willing to fail.
This is not simply saying that you are willing to, but a serious willingness to try hard and fall flat on your face several times. That's part of why I think games could be used well for this effort, and why games like Tetris and Bejeweled work best of all. When you expect to fail, such as in those two games, the question is about what you can do BEFORE you fail. If you are concerned with failing, you will not put it out of your mind enough to reach a meditative state.
Why this works is simple. Most people who can use normal meditative methods can sit still and be calm. So, it's those that have trouble sitting still, staying calm and so on that have problems with normal meditation.
With that in mind, the people who don't like sitting still and so on usually have something else like sports, games or martial arts that require them to calm their mind and focus. When they understand that to be a moving meditation, they can become familiar with that state through exercises like shown above. As they become more familiar with that state of mind it becomes easier to reach in other situations.
I commonly use juggling at home and Bejeweled at work for this reason; they work for me. I like to do those things and they help me clear my mind. The fact that I can calm myself and meditate normally doesn't detract from learning more about calming myself. In fact, I see the lack of it in many too serious individuals who are not willing to play such games, and those who insist on only thinking about winning. Back to that old phrase, "It's whether you win or lose, but how you play the game."
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Now, first off I would like to specify the variation I'm talking about. It is reaching a calm and clear mental state like that reached through martial arts. Continuous action without being slowed by seperate conscious thought. Separate is an important word in this case because there is thought, but it doesn't slow down the actions. Yet the value is learning to control ones mind and emotions.
So, let's take a look at the benefits of this and then the means to reaching the goal.
Frustration is a big problem in playing games, studying and the rest of life. Being able to manage frustration is very helpful in those cases. Yes, all of our lives. It helps reduce stress and there-by can improve your health. For the purposes of this post, it's the mental and emotional control that is important. Such control helps in not over reacting and flipping out while under stress. It also helps in activities like studying and paying attention in class.
Now, with the basic benefits out of the way, I'm sure most of you readers can see the general possibilities.
The question is of course, "How?" How do we get that to work? With my recent experience with it through a game, and realizing it, I might have some answers. So here are my observations.
1) Be good at the game.
While I had noticed a while back how I played when I played at my best, I didn't get the understanding of how to practically apply a meditative state to the game till I was fairly proficient. This is so you can play the game semi-unconsciously. I don't mean necessarily mastering the game. How good you need to be depends on you. I had to come close to mastery to use enough of my mind, which brings me to the next observation.
2) Be at your functional limit.
The natural way people grow is to come to the functional limitations of a certain method and practice at that limit. I did this when I learned to read word-by-word from letter-by-letter. The same happened when I was playing Bejeweled. Looking for a my next move after things have settled. It was just too slow at the levels I'd get to while playing. Little by little I would slide into the meditative state until I stopped paying attention to the level and speed required. Next thing I knew, I was at level eleven, about twice the level I normally stop at.
3) Play a game like Tetris or Bejeweled.
This is to facilitate observation #2. With Tetris and Bejeweled, there is a level of difficulty where you have to get into the "zone" to go farther. That means it doesn't matter much who you are, how smart you are or how good your are. The game will work for this exercise.
4) Be willing to fail.
This is not simply saying that you are willing to, but a serious willingness to try hard and fall flat on your face several times. That's part of why I think games could be used well for this effort, and why games like Tetris and Bejeweled work best of all. When you expect to fail, such as in those two games, the question is about what you can do BEFORE you fail. If you are concerned with failing, you will not put it out of your mind enough to reach a meditative state.
Why this works is simple. Most people who can use normal meditative methods can sit still and be calm. So, it's those that have trouble sitting still, staying calm and so on that have problems with normal meditation.
With that in mind, the people who don't like sitting still and so on usually have something else like sports, games or martial arts that require them to calm their mind and focus. When they understand that to be a moving meditation, they can become familiar with that state through exercises like shown above. As they become more familiar with that state of mind it becomes easier to reach in other situations.
I commonly use juggling at home and Bejeweled at work for this reason; they work for me. I like to do those things and they help me clear my mind. The fact that I can calm myself and meditate normally doesn't detract from learning more about calming myself. In fact, I see the lack of it in many too serious individuals who are not willing to play such games, and those who insist on only thinking about winning. Back to that old phrase, "It's whether you win or lose, but how you play the game."
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Commercial Resource Repurposing
There have been several places I've read concern for the learning market being commercialized to death. Fears and concerns that have a history of coming true. So, I'm wondering if we can suggest ideas that would work for the commercial interests and help guide them in the right direction.
At the moment there are many franchises and resources that could be used to create games of a more educational nature. There are a few I see that I'll discus here.
Repurposing Resources
With all those resources at their disposal, it makes sense to me to allow indies to experiment with potentially commercial projects. What do I mean by that? Simply put, there are a lot of people who want to learn and a lot of people who want to do. Those people could be offered non-paid positions with access to resources, to make prototypes, work samples and gain experience. These people would also be easy to screen for potential employees. So, it is beneficial for everybody and would likely cost very little for the potential gains to the company.
The important thing to realize here is that there are tons of old resources that pretty much aren't useful to the current commercial products. It's likely there are organizations willing to run some of thee programs. Some of these resources are available on the internet, so why not take that and make it official? It's been done before and has resulted in popular Mods. Some are simpler, but others have been rather impressive stand alone games.
Then there is the potential for educational use of those resources. Done properly, it could be both a plug for the franchises and useful in education. (If anybody reading this has an opening I would be happy to be a part of such a project. Okay, my plug is done. Back to the scheduled blog post.)
Concerned Combat
Star Wars, Halo and other similar franchises can be used for a more realistic resource management game. The idea is to take the FPS (first person shooter) gameplay, RTS (real time strategy) and resource management game mechanics and combine them. Truth is that many franchises could use this idea to do really cool things.
So let's get to the details of the idea. The player is in charge of a military force with a standing order requiring several missions. These missions are not separated like usual. Instead you maintain your resources through till you've achieved your goal, or failed. So if there is a native village, you can help them to gain more support and resources. This isn't a battle game. This isn't a simple combat game. It's a complicated game forcing the player to deal with the aftermath of battle to win the next.
I think it would be a great challenge to those who are masters of the RTS and FPS games. Can you command your troops, make snap decisions and maintain your resources in such a way that you can win the next battle? What do your superiors think of your performance? In the Star Wars franchise I envision the Jedi frowning on harming the villagers and the Sith frowning on wasting opportunities. Whether you are selfish or unselfish, it makes sense to build up your resources and use them responsibly. Considering the times, I think this would not only get gamers excited about the depth of gameplay and challenge, but get accolades from society about games encouraging the player to think about the realities of combat and have such a focus on community organizing.
Hidden Help
Harvest Moon is a game franchise that I've both played and watched people play. In it you maintain a farm and help the village to prosper. To me it would make for a great economy game. By playing as a person sent in to help some small towns become prosperous again, you have the potential to practice business and economy lessons, without the risk to your bank account. Three towns make up my envisioned game, a ranch town, a farm town and a crafting/artisan town.
The potential learning for this game goes far beyond that mentioned above. If you stick to the usual elements of a Harvest Moon game, and add some more, you can give a lot of information in small pieces. However the key to this is NOT taking care of your own farm. Instead you do odd jobs and help out the people in the different towns. With a little business sense you can turn a profit by supplying people with what they need. However, sometimes you should be willing to sacrifice immediate profits for potential future profits. Donating to businesses in trouble, or selling to them at a discount could be what keeps them operating. If it was an animal you owned and it got sick, you'd take care of it. Why, because it's beneficial. There's also the moral views on this, but I'm talking business and economy here.
You might be wondering what's so great about that particular game franchise for this. Well, here are some of the reasons I see. Animal products are obtained through purchasing or ranching. Produce is obtained through purchasing or farming. There is crafting and cooking in the game franchise. Shipping certain kinds of products brings related people into town, like any place known for a certain kind of industry or trade. Befriending people earns you benefits. All in all, it has most of what I see as needed for this idea. Though there is a lot of adjusting to make it work.
While there are more possibilities, I think this is a good place to stop for now. For something a little different, but similar, take a look at "Public Pedagogy through Video Games". It's a good article that was mentioned in OLDaily.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
At the moment there are many franchises and resources that could be used to create games of a more educational nature. There are a few I see that I'll discus here.
Repurposing Resources
With all those resources at their disposal, it makes sense to me to allow indies to experiment with potentially commercial projects. What do I mean by that? Simply put, there are a lot of people who want to learn and a lot of people who want to do. Those people could be offered non-paid positions with access to resources, to make prototypes, work samples and gain experience. These people would also be easy to screen for potential employees. So, it is beneficial for everybody and would likely cost very little for the potential gains to the company.
The important thing to realize here is that there are tons of old resources that pretty much aren't useful to the current commercial products. It's likely there are organizations willing to run some of thee programs. Some of these resources are available on the internet, so why not take that and make it official? It's been done before and has resulted in popular Mods. Some are simpler, but others have been rather impressive stand alone games.
Then there is the potential for educational use of those resources. Done properly, it could be both a plug for the franchises and useful in education. (If anybody reading this has an opening I would be happy to be a part of such a project. Okay, my plug is done. Back to the scheduled blog post.)
Concerned Combat
Star Wars, Halo and other similar franchises can be used for a more realistic resource management game. The idea is to take the FPS (first person shooter) gameplay, RTS (real time strategy) and resource management game mechanics and combine them. Truth is that many franchises could use this idea to do really cool things.
So let's get to the details of the idea. The player is in charge of a military force with a standing order requiring several missions. These missions are not separated like usual. Instead you maintain your resources through till you've achieved your goal, or failed. So if there is a native village, you can help them to gain more support and resources. This isn't a battle game. This isn't a simple combat game. It's a complicated game forcing the player to deal with the aftermath of battle to win the next.
I think it would be a great challenge to those who are masters of the RTS and FPS games. Can you command your troops, make snap decisions and maintain your resources in such a way that you can win the next battle? What do your superiors think of your performance? In the Star Wars franchise I envision the Jedi frowning on harming the villagers and the Sith frowning on wasting opportunities. Whether you are selfish or unselfish, it makes sense to build up your resources and use them responsibly. Considering the times, I think this would not only get gamers excited about the depth of gameplay and challenge, but get accolades from society about games encouraging the player to think about the realities of combat and have such a focus on community organizing.
Hidden Help
Harvest Moon is a game franchise that I've both played and watched people play. In it you maintain a farm and help the village to prosper. To me it would make for a great economy game. By playing as a person sent in to help some small towns become prosperous again, you have the potential to practice business and economy lessons, without the risk to your bank account. Three towns make up my envisioned game, a ranch town, a farm town and a crafting/artisan town.
The potential learning for this game goes far beyond that mentioned above. If you stick to the usual elements of a Harvest Moon game, and add some more, you can give a lot of information in small pieces. However the key to this is NOT taking care of your own farm. Instead you do odd jobs and help out the people in the different towns. With a little business sense you can turn a profit by supplying people with what they need. However, sometimes you should be willing to sacrifice immediate profits for potential future profits. Donating to businesses in trouble, or selling to them at a discount could be what keeps them operating. If it was an animal you owned and it got sick, you'd take care of it. Why, because it's beneficial. There's also the moral views on this, but I'm talking business and economy here.
You might be wondering what's so great about that particular game franchise for this. Well, here are some of the reasons I see. Animal products are obtained through purchasing or ranching. Produce is obtained through purchasing or farming. There is crafting and cooking in the game franchise. Shipping certain kinds of products brings related people into town, like any place known for a certain kind of industry or trade. Befriending people earns you benefits. All in all, it has most of what I see as needed for this idea. Though there is a lot of adjusting to make it work.
While there are more possibilities, I think this is a good place to stop for now. For something a little different, but similar, take a look at "Public Pedagogy through Video Games". It's a good article that was mentioned in OLDaily.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
What Educational Games Offer
Today I came across one of Stephen Downes posts via another Steve's post. In it Downes said not to build educational games. I find that interesting, since that is one of the things I intend to do, and Downes is often right, or pretty close. So, since this is the heart of this blog and my efforts, I'll explore this right here for you all to read and give response.
I think the key to this is the phrase, "If it is specifically an *educational* game, the answer is, 'nothing.'" The reason I believe that is the many examples of games made to teach, compared to games that draw on curriculum for game mechanics. It's a subtle, but profound difference in game design. For example a flight simulator draws on real facts and behaviors to make the game more fun, compared to a flight simulator made to give pilots experience.
The rest of the quote is based on the game being made specifically to teach curriculum. Since they are not games with educational value, but games to teach, I can understand the description. That doesn't mean I agree. First I'll cover why I don't think the games he refers to should be made as games. Then I'll come back to the his description of those games.
Why those games shouldn't be made, as games:
There are certain things that make an interactive model a game. These can be the hardest parts of making a game from an idea. Fine tuning the timing, balance, subtle guidance and more are a part of fine tuning the gameplay. This is time consuming and costly for a lot of games. Yet there is another way for the interactive models to be used for educational purposes while still being fun.
Allow people to play with the models, like a toy. Poke it. Prod it. See what happens. It's only a bit of code and data, so mistakes and normally bad events become something to watch. The fun is seeing what you can do with it. Examples and tips to get interesting results can help a lot. Hmmmm, sounds like low cost experiments. Make them freely accessible and you've got something truly useful.
When presented as something students can freely play with to help their comprehension, they aren't expecting quality gameplay. Yet, the principles of good gameplay can make these models better than the boring ones I've seen. While they are helpful, they aren't interesting. Worse, most don't provoke much thought.
The potential for games from these models:
That's what he said. I think there are several things that are not accurate in this quote, if designers approach their projects correctly. That's a BIG "if", as game industry history shows. No new users? Not easier to understand? Not adding motivation? Simply disguising an old method? Well, I'm not so sure. I'd say that this video of James Gee answers this well, but I have some additional things to say.
No new users?
Depends on what this means. Some would say that every person that plays the game that have not played is a new user. Others might say something about new users not being as important as returning users and people who spread the word. My guess is that if a teacher shows the game to their students and gets a good response from the students, more people will use the game.
Not easier to understand?
I'm an oddball. Telling me the rules to a game like Pinochle, I can grasp and apply the rules immediately, most people can't. While the text book may be boring, people do sometimes read them. Yet through school I've found most students find the textbooks are lacking, as is the standard lecture.
Not adding motivation?
Interactive, engaging private practice sounds like the kind of homework, or self learning tool, that fits the descriptions of good education. Having fun practicing skills, applying knowledge and solving problems really helps me want to do things that help me learn. Why? Games that reward deeper understanding is one example, where I learn to do better in relevant application of knowledge.
There is an immediate understanding of potential value inherent in games that use realistic application of knowledge. Just think about the success of shows like MacGyver and Myth Busters. They had/have an avid following of fans, who had examples of science in action.
Simply disguising an old method?
If I am playing through simulations of building bridges using calculus, physics and engineering, I can try it, test, learn and try again if I want. To me that sounds like iterative design in action. When I try that in, and out of, school I find I learn more than just memorizing facts or doing a one time through. It's also easy to make open to the public.
Plus there is the interesting memory result. Ask somebody about fun times and games they've played, then ask them about what they learned in their classes. I find that personally I remember far more about the games I've enjoyed playing than the classes I enjoyed. With that comes the facts and understanding.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
"Don't build an educational game
This bit of advice is pretty specific and probably does not apply to most people (since most people would not dream of doing this in the first place). But the question to ask yourself is, what is a game doing for you that a straight-forward presentation of the information is not? If it is specifically an *educational* game, the answer is, "nothing." You're not getting new users, you're not presenting material in any way that's easier to understand, you're not adding to motivation. You're simply disguising the old 'teach and test' methodology as a game. Nobody will be fooled well, except maybe purchasers of fad educational products." - Steven Downes (Link)
I think the key to this is the phrase, "If it is specifically an *educational* game, the answer is, 'nothing.'" The reason I believe that is the many examples of games made to teach, compared to games that draw on curriculum for game mechanics. It's a subtle, but profound difference in game design. For example a flight simulator draws on real facts and behaviors to make the game more fun, compared to a flight simulator made to give pilots experience.
The rest of the quote is based on the game being made specifically to teach curriculum. Since they are not games with educational value, but games to teach, I can understand the description. That doesn't mean I agree. First I'll cover why I don't think the games he refers to should be made as games. Then I'll come back to the his description of those games.
Why those games shouldn't be made, as games:
There are certain things that make an interactive model a game. These can be the hardest parts of making a game from an idea. Fine tuning the timing, balance, subtle guidance and more are a part of fine tuning the gameplay. This is time consuming and costly for a lot of games. Yet there is another way for the interactive models to be used for educational purposes while still being fun.
Allow people to play with the models, like a toy. Poke it. Prod it. See what happens. It's only a bit of code and data, so mistakes and normally bad events become something to watch. The fun is seeing what you can do with it. Examples and tips to get interesting results can help a lot. Hmmmm, sounds like low cost experiments. Make them freely accessible and you've got something truly useful.
When presented as something students can freely play with to help their comprehension, they aren't expecting quality gameplay. Yet, the principles of good gameplay can make these models better than the boring ones I've seen. While they are helpful, they aren't interesting. Worse, most don't provoke much thought.
The potential for games from these models:
"You're not getting new users, you're not presenting material in any way that's easier to understand, you're not adding to motivation. You're simply disguising the old 'teach and test' methodology as a game. Nobody will be fooled well, except maybe purchasers of fad educational products." - Steven Downes (Link)
That's what he said. I think there are several things that are not accurate in this quote, if designers approach their projects correctly. That's a BIG "if", as game industry history shows. No new users? Not easier to understand? Not adding motivation? Simply disguising an old method? Well, I'm not so sure. I'd say that this video of James Gee answers this well, but I have some additional things to say.
No new users?
Depends on what this means. Some would say that every person that plays the game that have not played is a new user. Others might say something about new users not being as important as returning users and people who spread the word. My guess is that if a teacher shows the game to their students and gets a good response from the students, more people will use the game.
Not easier to understand?
I'm an oddball. Telling me the rules to a game like Pinochle, I can grasp and apply the rules immediately, most people can't. While the text book may be boring, people do sometimes read them. Yet through school I've found most students find the textbooks are lacking, as is the standard lecture.
Not adding motivation?
Interactive, engaging private practice sounds like the kind of homework, or self learning tool, that fits the descriptions of good education. Having fun practicing skills, applying knowledge and solving problems really helps me want to do things that help me learn. Why? Games that reward deeper understanding is one example, where I learn to do better in relevant application of knowledge.
There is an immediate understanding of potential value inherent in games that use realistic application of knowledge. Just think about the success of shows like MacGyver and Myth Busters. They had/have an avid following of fans, who had examples of science in action.
Simply disguising an old method?
If I am playing through simulations of building bridges using calculus, physics and engineering, I can try it, test, learn and try again if I want. To me that sounds like iterative design in action. When I try that in, and out of, school I find I learn more than just memorizing facts or doing a one time through. It's also easy to make open to the public.
Plus there is the interesting memory result. Ask somebody about fun times and games they've played, then ask them about what they learned in their classes. I find that personally I remember far more about the games I've enjoyed playing than the classes I enjoyed. With that comes the facts and understanding.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Designing a Classroom Game Support System
There are several challenges to be faced when supporting players as learners. From the game industry side this is really the same set of challenges normally faced, but their approaches make sense as a support for students.
In this I will also be explaining some of my reasoning and direction for things like the content module and the bigger initiative I have in mind. Hopefully this will clear some things up.
Basic Idea
If we take a moment to think about the references used by gamers we will see a rather redundant and scattered set of materials made by different sources. FAQs, guides and other gamers are the a good place to start. Then there are the booklets, box text and in-game help that come with games, depending on the medium and condition of the game.
Besides all the great learning and teaching principles involved, the resources are easily expanded to contain relevant education references. Easy and effective sounds good to me for educational resources. Scattered, semi-redundant and user generated sounds a lot like Web 2.0 to me.
More Depth
There are sites with discussion boards, wikis and other similar resources to those available to the gamers, only for learners. These are all natural efforts that live and die by Darwinian rules. The strong resources survive, but the measure of strength is not just the quality of the materials. It also includes the community of people who support the site from webmasters to repeat viewers and those who guide others to the resource.
The reason is that those resources are social educational resources. This is in stark contrast to the standard view of techs, designers, artists and many other creative views of what should and should not survive. The success by which these resources are measured is partially social, such as acceptance and effective use.
That view is also very different from normal resources that students are to use. Textbooks are NOT social, thought they can be used in a social way. This natural growth of the resource and support designs shows us a good view of what to optimize our designs for.
Applying Concepts
I'm not going to say I know the best way to do this, but I can share my thoughts and processes. Reverse engineering of the optimal idea (to me) was my start. Many, low cost, high quality educational games is what seemed like the optimal idea. That requires many things.
To accomplish that first requires somebody equally comfortable with teaching as game design, and near unstoppable in both, if not brilliant. This person, or people, would be the catalyst required to keep the general populace following nicely. That's needed to give people direction and a social glue to keep people together. (Yes I am trying to be one of these people, if not THE person. Somebody has to do it.)
Several communities, interconnected by individuals multiple memberships. These communities are a singal way to organize and view the social networks, based on skills and interests such as programming, teaching and game design. These are not to be the only or biggest communities, but rather give the overall network quality and quantity of contacts into related fields. Games, learning, technology and education are just some general ideas of related fields.
Many teams of people from different skill fields are needed to create the content that gives value to the network to the participants. This is a big deal. It gives cross field contacts, hands-on experience and accomplishments, content for other teams to use and even more.
Then there are all the resources; references, art, audio, tools, code and more needed by developers to implement the many great ideas out there for interactive,engaging education.
Content Module
To me this is the first step, a completely open content module that is compatible with most computers and platforms. That's because the bits of content made by many need to be easily, legally usable by others. References for designers, developers and different kinds of users is also needed in a remixable way.
The idea came from the resources used in, and outside, a game. For a learning game to be effective, players need to have access to really good references. For efficiency, these shouldn't have to be redone each and every time a game includes curricular content.
So a library of open educational resources formatted in a single standard XML schema would be logical for this effort. Using AJAX the content module would be able to pull XML from a plethora of resource libraries. That gives everybody the potential to contribute. Even a single really cool piece of content or remix of content would be a help. Personal collections of resources, with proper citations, would then be a simple matter. Well, if my plans stay generally intact.
Conclusion
This is just the start of the concept I started designing spring/summer 2007. To go into the full scope would take me a long time, being that it is a design made to grow and adapt as needed. Designed with the game industry, educational institutions and individuals in mind, I'm hoping this is good enough to succeed in social, intellectual and financial ways.
So Chris, does my idea make more sense now?
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
In this I will also be explaining some of my reasoning and direction for things like the content module and the bigger initiative I have in mind. Hopefully this will clear some things up.
Basic Idea
If we take a moment to think about the references used by gamers we will see a rather redundant and scattered set of materials made by different sources. FAQs, guides and other gamers are the a good place to start. Then there are the booklets, box text and in-game help that come with games, depending on the medium and condition of the game.
Besides all the great learning and teaching principles involved, the resources are easily expanded to contain relevant education references. Easy and effective sounds good to me for educational resources. Scattered, semi-redundant and user generated sounds a lot like Web 2.0 to me.
More Depth
There are sites with discussion boards, wikis and other similar resources to those available to the gamers, only for learners. These are all natural efforts that live and die by Darwinian rules. The strong resources survive, but the measure of strength is not just the quality of the materials. It also includes the community of people who support the site from webmasters to repeat viewers and those who guide others to the resource.
The reason is that those resources are social educational resources. This is in stark contrast to the standard view of techs, designers, artists and many other creative views of what should and should not survive. The success by which these resources are measured is partially social, such as acceptance and effective use.
That view is also very different from normal resources that students are to use. Textbooks are NOT social, thought they can be used in a social way. This natural growth of the resource and support designs shows us a good view of what to optimize our designs for.
Applying Concepts
I'm not going to say I know the best way to do this, but I can share my thoughts and processes. Reverse engineering of the optimal idea (to me) was my start. Many, low cost, high quality educational games is what seemed like the optimal idea. That requires many things.
To accomplish that first requires somebody equally comfortable with teaching as game design, and near unstoppable in both, if not brilliant. This person, or people, would be the catalyst required to keep the general populace following nicely. That's needed to give people direction and a social glue to keep people together. (Yes I am trying to be one of these people, if not THE person. Somebody has to do it.)
Several communities, interconnected by individuals multiple memberships. These communities are a singal way to organize and view the social networks, based on skills and interests such as programming, teaching and game design. These are not to be the only or biggest communities, but rather give the overall network quality and quantity of contacts into related fields. Games, learning, technology and education are just some general ideas of related fields.
Many teams of people from different skill fields are needed to create the content that gives value to the network to the participants. This is a big deal. It gives cross field contacts, hands-on experience and accomplishments, content for other teams to use and even more.
Then there are all the resources; references, art, audio, tools, code and more needed by developers to implement the many great ideas out there for interactive,engaging education.
Content Module
To me this is the first step, a completely open content module that is compatible with most computers and platforms. That's because the bits of content made by many need to be easily, legally usable by others. References for designers, developers and different kinds of users is also needed in a remixable way.
The idea came from the resources used in, and outside, a game. For a learning game to be effective, players need to have access to really good references. For efficiency, these shouldn't have to be redone each and every time a game includes curricular content.
So a library of open educational resources formatted in a single standard XML schema would be logical for this effort. Using AJAX the content module would be able to pull XML from a plethora of resource libraries. That gives everybody the potential to contribute. Even a single really cool piece of content or remix of content would be a help. Personal collections of resources, with proper citations, would then be a simple matter. Well, if my plans stay generally intact.
Conclusion
This is just the start of the concept I started designing spring/summer 2007. To go into the full scope would take me a long time, being that it is a design made to grow and adapt as needed. Designed with the game industry, educational institutions and individuals in mind, I'm hoping this is good enough to succeed in social, intellectual and financial ways.
So Chris, does my idea make more sense now?
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
