technoludology ::: digitalearning

slideshare presentation - please vote!

2008-10-17T07:58:00.000-07:00

I don't normally cover ki work stuff here (my real job), but there's a competition going on over at Slideshare, to come up with a presentation relating to the Credit Crisis. Check out the presentation below, and if you like it, please vote for it here.

Credit Crisis to Collaborative Capitalism

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: internet collaboration)

Trouvu la ringon perditan

2008-04-28T03:56:00.000-07:00

An exciting 360 degree ARG is really taking shape. Designed in part by Jane McGonigal, creater of numerous multi-layered game experiences in the past, this has the makings of a classic.

To get involved follow these easy steps (taken from McGonigals blog, avantgame)

1) First, watch The Lost Ring trailer at http://www.thelostring.com
2) Next, learn the legends of the ancient games, including The Lost Olypmic Sport, by watching the video podcasts at http://www.thelostgames.com/
3) Then, meet the global cast of characters -- they're blogging in eight different languages! -- at http://www.findthelostring.com/
4) Finally, if you're hooked, visit the players' wiki to catch up on the story and puzzles so far -- it's at http://olympics.wikibruce.com/Home

Let me know if you find the lost ring...

Future of Digital Media

2007-09-07T10:10:00.000-07:00

Looking at going for a job with Quba and in the application form they posed this question:

What are the main current digital media trends, and what impact do you think will they have on business communications in the next 5 years?

It's a tough one, as things seem to be changing in this field so quickly. All the same, here's an attempt at the answer.

People nowadays expect a lot more than they used to from their digital media experiences. Instead of just being passive consumers, people now like to interact and play with their media, to customize their features, to create, contribute and share their own creations, and to access exactly what they want, when they want it. Only ten years ago, people were mostly sat in front of TV screens for terrestrial and cable channels, videos and game consoles. Now things are moving towards all forms of entertainment and social interaction coming through the computer screen. Before families fought over the TV remote -now they’re fighting over the computer.

Right now we’re experiencing a kind of mini-boom in Internet use, where huge numbers of users are flocking to be a part of ‘web 2.0’ communities and to make use of the many online features now available. The video-sharing site YouTube counts about 13 million users per month, the social-networking site Facebook claims to have 66 million regular users and is forecasting 180 million within two years and Google Earth has had 200 million people download their software. Google Earth alone has a number of users equivalent to the population of the 5th largest country in the world. This a change in the way people interact with media of epic proportions, and it’s a hugely exciting time for everyone, especially digital media developers, because digital culture is changing so quickly and there’s plenty of opportunities for new and innovative ideas.

The market has changed so much in the past two years, that it’s hard predict exactly what will happen in the next five, but it’s probably a safe bet that trends of content-creation and the desire for interactivity will continue. As more people around the world gain access to technologies such as digital cameras, video cameras, personal computers and mobile phones, so this surge towards creating large-scale digital communities is likely to continues. I am pretty sure that mobile phones and PDAs will become more and more prominent as the main supplier of all our digital needs (as they are pretty much already) and this will require digital media producers to be aware of how best to tailor development for handhelds. There’s been a steady rise in the popularity of games too, and this will continue to spread from consoles, to web-based multiplayer experiences, for entertainment, marketing and training. Above all though, I think what will be most interesting will be how all the multitude of features now available on the web will be combined to add even richer experiences for consumers. We are only just beginning to scratch the surface of what we can do with everything out there.

So it’s a cliché I know, but business communications will need to be particularly flexible, adaptable and sensitive to what’s going on in the Net, as one moment something might be the next-big-thing, while the next it might be old-hat. People are increasingly media-savvy and are now looking for authentic experiences that they can actually get involved in, feel a part of and not just observe quietly from the fringes. We’re all now drawn to experimentation, new ways of interacting and fresh ways of using the technology at our fingertips. So ultimately businesses will need to be creative in their approach if they are to appeal to the digital generation. But then that’s half the fun.

Sad day for digital learning innovation

2007-08-25T15:11:00.000-07:00

I was deeply saddened to read of the BBC's decision to cancel the BBC Jam project (see this article), which in my view was at the forefront of web-based learning. I've yet to find a learning tool that was as well-designed and interactive. The reason for its early abandonment is less that clear - I just hope that other production companies will pick up from where they left off.

ARGs made clear (er)

2007-08-25T14:48:00.000-07:00

Many thanks to Kyle Stallone for doing a great service to the ARG community with this site: whatisthisgameabout. It's a site that anyone who's struggled with piecing together a storyline from thousands of forum posts will welcome with open arms, as it provides synopses of current ARGs and ways in for newcomers. Should make games a little more accessible for the confused masses.
Now why didn't I think of that_

Tomorrow Calling goes public

2007-08-05T09:40:00.000-07:00

Many thanks to Nicko Demeter for posting this article on ARGN.com. Looks like the launch is now official!

It's Tomorrow Calling. Do You Accept the Charges?
by Nicko Demeter
If a relative from the future asked for your help to protect the Earth, what would you do?

This is the first line of the teaser email leading to a new alternate reality game aimed to bring environmental awareness to the ARG community. The game offers the usual (such as hidden clues on the sites, YouTube videos, and cryptic blogs) while the flavorful text speaks of an uncertain tomorrow, and an Earth that we must protect now for future generations.

While ARGNet could find no indication that there is any overlap in puppetmasters, characters in Tomorrow Calling link to sites from another environmentally sensitive ARG, World Without Oil, and refer to it not as a game, but as a "reality."

The message is sent loud and clear within the text as much as within the actual clues. Do you need to find the next website? Then you must read the blog of a woman that muses about her fears for the earth as we know it. Do you want to know why the evil organization is... evil? Check out a Google Earth file with important dates and sites for the environmental movement.

According to its creators, the game so far has welcomed only a few players, in order to work out the kinks for a larger scale launch. With its beta launch back in May, the sites definitely look professional and the blog posts are well thought out. However, it appears to me to be an immersive, but mostly static narrative without a great deal of direct interaction.

The game has garnered some critical acclaim, as its (apparent) creators Jim Wolff and Andrea Sides have won the Grant Challenge Award at the 5th International Symposium on Digital Earth, held this past June in San Francisco. With its aspirations to educate as well as entertain, we are certainly looking forward to more from Tomorrow Calling in the near future.

Alternate reality gets real

2007-05-08T18:39:00.000-07:00

Mark Heggen has just posted a fascinating article on the ´non-casual` uses of ARGs on his blog http://retext.blogspot.com/. Aside from some great interviews and views from big-hitters in ARG and media circles, there´s also a short interview with myself covering some of the ideas posted throughout this blog. Am honoured to be in such illustrious company!

Aside from this, World Without Oil has launched and has already collected a massive amount of input from people´s video, pictures and blogs, not to mention some well conceived missions. It´s a fantastic concept, and is probably the best example currently out there of how ARGs might be used for social purpose. Brilliant design overall - looking fwd to seeing where it all goes.

And as a final piece of good news, the ARG that Andrew Sides and I designed has been selected as a winner for the International Digital Earth Conference (www.ISDE5.org). We´ll be heading out to San Francisco in June to pick up our award. And will be sure to wear a flower in our hair.

GBL completed - More than just fun and games: what I have e-learnt this semester

2007-04-09T09:02:00.000-07:00

Well it's been a thoroughly engaging few months for me, covering a whole host of topics and areas, not just related to gaming, but also to internet technologies and functions, online collaboration and to literacy and learning as a whole. I can honestly say that I have had no greater desire to learn about and understand a subject - perhaps because it interests me greatly, perhaps because of the enthusiasm of other members and moderator of the course, or perhaps from the intentional design of the course to encourage these features - but probably a combination of all three. Here I hope to review my original aims for the course, and some persistent themes that have arisen in my weblog - I'll finish briefly with some possible future directions.

In terms of original aims for the course, I was particularly interested in how computer games might be used alongside f2f group teaching/training. I had initial reservations about people, especially children, spending so much time physically isolated from others in front of a screen, and wanted to find ways to incorporate digital technologies and f2f group activities. I was thoroughly pleased to be introduced then, to the concept of ARGs, which integrated online collaboration and often group activities too. Games like The Go Game, Augmented Reality Games, 'Big Games' and even the concept of Smart Mobs all combine technology features with personal collaboration and learning. The step that ARGs take, from full fantasy, to semi-real, semi-fantasy (or 'real-play' as opposed to 'role-play' in McGonigal's words) is for me a significant motivation for exploring this field further, and the scope it has for engaging learners in collaborative ways.

This is not to say that I haven't also learned to appreciate the value of single-player, screen-based games. Through a focussed enquiry into the game *Civilisation IV*, and the writings of Squire and Gee in particular, I have come to realise the significant potential that video games, especially simulation games, have for providing learners with a fully immersive environment in which to learn about subjects. In such games players are free to make choices, make mistakes, and act as if they really *are* the game's protagonist character, encouraging meaningful, embodied action of direct relevance to the player. This is in my view an enormous step forward from a simple text-based pedagogy. The thoughts and experiences of Sasha Barab and David Shaffer were also very helpful in coming to appreciate just how valuable learning in an immersive game environment might be, as they both express eloquently how a game with well-designed learning intentions might not just teach a player facts about a subject, but require the player to be a *practitioner* of that subject.[This NML webcast was fascinating in this respect]

In terms of continuing themes, one that has consistently arisen, both in this course and the previous (IDEL), is the Digital Native vs Digital Immigrants debate. Through this study of games I have come to realise that this gulf is perhaps even wider than I had first appreciated, and this point is relentlessly drilled home by Gee's analysis of where schools are failing engage learners in the way that good video games do (see previous post). However, as I argued previously, I believe that using games and digital simulations may be one way of diminishing this divide. Utilising the inherent appeal of good, well-designed games will inspire students to learn using technology they are accustomed to, while also introducing older generation teachers to digital age teaching technology.

Another theme that has persisted throughout this course is what constitutes a *good* game. From readings by traditional play theorists to modern-day digital game designers, it is clear that the features that make a game enjoyable and fun to play have not suddenly changed in the digital age. Elements of fantasy and challenge, while not always necessary, seem to be in most cases a common factor for the game's appeal. Likewise, ensuring that the challenge is not too easy, nor too hard, seems to be an enduring problem for game designers, very much like it is for teachers who are planning their lessons.

As a meta-reflection on the game-centred design of this particular course, it has been fascinating for me to actually experience the potential for GBL, by carrying out game-like tasks, using Second Life, Google Earth and WebQuests. It was interesting to experience directly the motivational draw that such tasks inspired in me, and most of the time I forgot that they were actually *learning* tasks. The subsequent discussions that ensued from these tasks where on balance highly entertaining, and rather than distracting from the intended learning, actually encouraged (for me anyway) further subject enquiry. As a teaching model this is potentially extremely powerful.

I'd like to reflect finally on the game design task, in which Andrew Sides and I created the ARG *Tomorrow Calling* (which should be ready for 'launching' soon). It was and still is (as I had feared it might) a challenging and painfully creative, yet hugely rewarding experience. Here's a list of things I have learned in the process: importance of narrative structure and character development; website development, design and uploading; code encryption and challenge design; audio recording and cross-media integration; the value of subject-related forums (affinity groups); features of a good/bad ARG (I hope); and effective and not-so-effective ways to produce work and communicate with a co-worker online. Such an outcome of having a game designed and produced by the end of the course (almost), was not something I had originally expected.

In terms of future directions, I am now hugely inspired to further my research and application of GBL and, as I mentioned above, I'm particularly drawn to the potential of ARGs and Cross-Media initiatives for learning and teaching (Project NML for example, includes some innovative projects). I get the impression (though this is likely to be biased of course) that the field of GBL is likely to grow over the next few years, and for me this is one of the more exciting and potentially important directions that the wider field of e-learning is heading.

Level 11 - Game-based Learning in the UK: The current state of play

2007-04-08T08:59:00.000-07:00

As an overview of the field of GBL in the UK, the JISC report on this subject has some up-to-date findings on how games are currently being used for learning, and how they might be used in the near future. This blog posting is devoted to those findings.

Firstly, the review of GBL literature highlights some interesting points that I've not already covered in previous postings. One recommendation (Garris et al., 2002), is that for effective learning to take place, learning outcomes for a game must be clearly apparent, and not indirect or inconspicuous. De Freitas, the author of the JISC report, writes that 'the key challenge for effective learning with games is for the learner to be engaged, motivated, supported and interested but also importantly for the learning to be undertaken in relation to clear learning outcomes as well as being made relevant to real world contexts of practice. A key challenge for designers then is to get the correct balance between delightful play and fulfilling specified learning outcomes.' I had previously believed that there might be some value in the learning outcomes not being explicit, so that the player learns without even realising it, but it seems that vague and discreet learning objectives aren't of much educational benefit.

The literature findings also raised some interesting points in relation to player motivation. Factors such as a sense of reasonable challenge I have covered already in previous postings, but this report raises some other key factors for motivation such as 'game realism', 'opportunities to explore of discover new information' and 'learner control' that I've not really considered yet. Starting with game realism being an element of appeal, this seems to go against Malone's findings of (relevant) fantasy being a factor of appeal. However I don't think the two are mutually exclusive - for example, you could have a realistic fighting and war game (such as America's Army), which also involves what are really fantasy scenarios. Thus it would appear then that *realistic fantasies*, as opposed to unrealistic fantasies, offer the most motivational appeal to players. The second factor above, 'opportunities to explore and discover', is an interesting feature of appeal, as such a feature is also likely to encourage *exploratory learning*. This type of learning is taken to mean, in De Freitas's words, 'play as rehearsal or ‘pattern formation’... This notion of learning is based upon the notion that learning patterns can be helpfully transferred to dissimilar situations through meta-reflection. Unlike Kolb’s experimental learning this process is not always circular (although it may be), and does not rely upon lived experience. Rather the approach acknowledges the cognitive process that help individuals to use their imagination and creativity to draw out lessons from interactions as well as extracting meaning from data.' Include these opportunities for exploration with learner control, giving a greater sense of ownership, and game designers can ensure increased appeal and greater scope for learning potential.

In terms of current trends of GBL highlighted by the report, there are already several different modes of uses of digital games, including games: 'as metaphors, as tools, for therapy and for the rehearsal of skills, for supporting higher cognition in microworlds and as open ended spaces for experimentation'. It also appears that an increased usage of digital technology in the home, workplace and for entertainment, is making digital learning games more accepted as valued learning tools. Previously digital gaming had negative connotations associated with violence and unproductive entertainment, but this is no longer viewed to be such a prevalent social attitude.

In terms of future trends for GBL, the report mentions the potential for non-technical game authoring tools which are becoming available for educators, and the increased potential for 'modding' and teacher participation in game design. Many COTS games now are being designed to maximise player control and customisation, which is good news for educators. One example of such an adaptation is the game *Revolution*, a mod of *Neverwinter Nights*, used to teach about American revolution history. It was developed by the MIT-University of Wisconsin Education Arcade initiative, led by the project director Henry Jenkins and with a design and development team led by Philip Tan (Education Arcade, 2006). The initial design document was written by Matt Weise with additional inputs from Kurt Squire.] Russell Francis of Oxford university (2006), studied the effectiveness of this game for school learners, aiming to explore the educational potential of virtual role-play as a new medium for supporting learning and teaching about social aspects of history. The study focused upon story-telling as the basis for experiential learning, and found that 'stories based on historical events or stories that explore real world social issues allowed learners to step out of the immediacy of the present and imagine what it might be like to be someone else who may have lived at a different time, place or under different social-historical circumstances'. The study found that Revolution was indeed a useful tool for giving learners the chance to experience historical periods from many different viewpoints, encouraging students to see history not as a series of facts, but as a complex inter-relation of opinions and sources.

The conclusions from the report perhaps reflect the general trajectory for GBL study and application. Included is the token 'more research needed', but specifically this includes the necessity for further empirical case study data. There are also suggestions for the development of more effective support materials for teachers wishing to use games in education, and likewise opportunities for staff development/training in GBL possibilities. With one of the main barriers to using games in schools cited as being a lack of access to equipment, it is also predicted that the ever-growing prevalence of digital technology and communication will make the practicalities of GBL more likely. All in all though, the outlook for further application of GBL looks pretty positive.

Level 10 - Why and how the modern school system could try harder

2007-04-06T08:36:00.000-07:00

A common theme from Gee's (2003) 'What video games have to teach us...' is the notion that modern day schools systems are failing to inspire good learning as well as a well-designed videogame might. Here I want to assess these arguments and look at how schools might adapt their practices to accommodate Gee's theories of what constitutes good learning and teaching.

One of his ongoing proposals is that VGs stimulate *critical* learning, or learning that is highly reflexive. But do schools not teach critical learning already? As far as I can tell, many are at least trying. There is currently some enthusiasm in mainstream schooling for what is generally termed 'Critical skills', also known as 'Thinking Skills', and these skills encapsulate a whole host of advanced cognitive processes, such as making inferences, bridging with other subject areas and considering one's own thinking processes (or metacognition). The history of this direction of thinking about learning is very interesting, and is generally attributed to three main sources. Firstly the work of Reuven Feuerstein, who while testing the IQs of recently arrived immigrants to Israel post-WW2 found that the tests were woefully inadequate at assessing their true cognitive capacities. He went on to develop other tests that better assessed their ability to think and reason. Secondly, the work of Matthew Lipman, the founder of 'Philosophy for Children', who as a college professor, found that many of his undergraduate students failed to articulate basic concepts. On further examination of the primary and secondary school system he realised that schools were completely failing to encourage reflective thinking, so went on to design a whole series of lesson ideas that might encourage more articulated thinking and discussion. And thirdly the work of Edward de Bono, who has developed a whole host of 'thinking tools' , including brain-based learning (which always makes me smile, as I have no idea how else someone learns). The very fact that schools are considering the integration of these ideas is I suppose a step in the right direction. However the impression I get from teachers is that encouraging these skills in lessons sounds great in theory, but often gets set aside by the need to impart curriculum-based knowledge; the results-driven exam system of assessment makes it very difficult to stray from the current norm. Which is a shame - as in my view learning *how to think* should be one of the main priorities of schooling. I actually asked Ted Wragg at a conference whether he thought there might be a time when critical skills might be assessed, and he said he hoped not, using the amusing analogy that being assessed on a sex education class would take the fun out of it. While I don't dare differ with the highly-esteemed Mr. Wragg, I fear that without some form of assessment of these skills, teachers will never be motivated enough to include thinking development in lessons.

From this current conception of critical thinking, I feel that Gee's concept l takes this direction a step further. In his view, critical thinking 'involves learning to think of semiotic domains as design spaces that manipulate us in certain ways and that we can manipulate in certain ways'. There are two key points here. In terms of design spaces, Gee recognises that a semiotic domain is simply a subject that has been created by others, and is still in the process of being designed. With reference to games, but could also be said of any subject, he writes about the value in 'thinking about the (internal) design of the game, about the game as a complex system of interrelated parts meant to engage and even manipulate the player in certain ways. This is metalevel thinking, thinking about the game as a system and a designed space, and not just playing within the game moment by moment'. The second key point here is the recognition that design spaces affect and are affected by their users. In other words, he takes the idea that reflecting on a given subject is good for learning, but also includes the consideration that learners are themselves *changed* by this new understanding (they literally *identify* with the subject), and are also empowered to affect this domain with their own contributions. This is a significant development for critical thinking in my opinion, as instead of the learner encouraged just to objectively criticise a given subject, the learner is also encouraged to be personally involved with other like-minded people (the affinity group) who serve to assess, contribute and design the future direction of the domain.

An additional feature of good learning that Gee describes is the value of *active* learning, where the learner actively experiences the application of what they are learning. Experiential learning is something that VGs do very well to encourage, as it is potentially possible for a player character to experience anything that one can experience in non-virtual life, and more besides. Using Civilisation iv as an example, I can learn how best to manage the resources of a country by actually simulating the management of a country; reading a book on the subject would be nowhere near as close to the real practice of running a country. Where possible however, schools already do try to give learners practical experience of a subject, particularly in vocational subjects, but will claim (perhaps rightly) that there are practical limitations on how much direct experience can be offered. Gee is I feel a little unfair on schools when he writes that 'one thing that designers of video games realize, but that many schools seem not to, is that learning for human beings is, in large part, a practice effect.' I think its fair to say that teachers do recognise the value of experiential learning, but might attest that it's neither possible nor necessary to offer learning from direct experience all the time. So does it matter that learning is not always experiential?

Gee argues it *does*, explaining that one of the key values of experiential learning is the scope for fully situated meaning. He suggests that a school's failure to provide experiential embodied learning makes it very hard for students to arrive at a meaningful understanding of a subject. 'Purely verbal meanings, meanings that a person has no ability to customize for specific situations and that offer the person no invitations for embodied actions in different situations, are useless (save for passing tests in school).' He uses this example: 'if you can't use "democracy" in a situation-specific way..., then the word does not make sense to you, no matter how well you can repeat a dictionary definition for the word.' This is fairly damning stuff, and applies to tertiary education as much as primary and secondary. If what Gee suggests is true, then learning something out of a personally relevant context literally makes no sense. As he mentions, ''one good way to make people look stupid is to ask them to learn and think in terms of words and abstractions that they cannot connect in any useful way to images or situations in their embodied experiences in the world. Unfortunately, we regulartly do this in schools... In school, words and meanings usually float free of material conditions and embodied actions. They take on only general, so-called decontextualized meanings. Their meanings just amount to spelling out a word or phrase in terms of still other words and phrases, themselves with only general meanings.' So words to explain more words to explain more words doesn't do much to help students achieve a meaningful understanding of a subject. But given the budget and logistical limitations that schools have, how can situated meaning and experiential learning be further fostered in lessons? One clear solution is to employ immersive VG simulations that will at least offer greater similarity to true experience than traditional 'chalk and talk' teaching.

I feel slightly bad at this stage for giving schools such a hard time, as I'm sure there are great inroads already being made in these areas. However one area I'm particularly concerned about is schools' universal drive towards knowledge acquisition and retention, over knowledge application. Plato recognised the futility of this tenet and is quoted as saying 'Knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind'. This still holds true today. As Gee once again points out, '[students] are learning to store discrete facts and elements of knowledge, not deeper patterns... if people have a pattern in their mind, however, when they are faced with a new situation, they can reflect on how this pattern can be revised to cover the new situation.' So while knowledge accumulation can be easily evaluated, it is mainly the capacity of a student's memory that is being tested, rather than their ability to piece together items of knowledge in meaningful ways. Gee calls terms this learning to *use* knowledge effectively, *pattern thinking*, where 'you are, in reality learning how to situate the meaning of the word or concept... to fit different situations, including situations you may not have seen before. Lists require no such thinking and learning. Patterns are experiential theories... that we change with more experience, more probing and reprobing of the world.' So instead of focusing so intently on *how much* knowledge a student can accumulate, school evaluation systems would do well to look a little more at how well a student is able to make sense of the little knowledge they might have.

But to use Gee's reference to cultural models, the current view on evaluation asserts that "exams prove whether a student is clever and/or works hards". Another one might be that "exams show how much the student has learned and are good at categorizing students as better or worse". Yet another might be, "exams results show how successful the teacher has been at imparting the subject". But these are all dangerous assumptions to make. As someone who has 'played' and 'won' many examinations to get to this academic stage, I can be thankful that I've a good enough short term memory to get here. But on reflection, such short-term memorisation to pass exams barely constitutes understanding of a subject (just try asking me to write an essay on philosophy - my undergraduate subject - now. I fear it would be woefully inadequate.) So I feel that part of the change to accommodate all of Gee's theories about good learning must involve a change in the evaluative process a the end. This is I suppose already occurring, with a move towards more and more coursework, but things still have some way to go. [Some progressive and forward-thinking courses now require no examinations at all - their designers must truly be innovative and enlightened educational pioneers ;-)]

The final consideration of Gee's that I want to address here is his proposal that 'learning... is very much a matter of being situated in a material, social, and cultural world'. In other words, learning cannot and should not be isolated from other people. For as Gee points out, 'the patterns... in our heads, ... become meaningful ("right" or "wrong") only from the perspective of the workings of social groups that "enforce" certain patterns as ideal norms toward which everyone in that group should orient.' Thus we rely on other people's verification of our thoughts to indicate whether they are meaningful or not. For example, scientific pioneers such as Einstein and Newton only really become 'right', when enough experienced people validate their work. Without the assistance of a group, no thinker has any way to test wether their theories are veridical. But as Gee suggests, schools regularly segregate students from social corroboration. He writes that 'schools still isolate children form such powerful networks - for example, a network built around some branch of science- and test and assess them as isolated individuals, apart from other people and apart from tools and technologies that they could leverage to powerful ends.' So although steps toward co-operative and group learning *are* being made in schools [http://edtech.kennesaw.edu/intech/cooperativelearning.htm], this enforced individualism does little to make use of the potential for networked learning.

By networked learning here, I mean making use of the potential that a myriad of connected networks has for helping store and a disseminate knowledge and ideas. The internet has really made this opportunity for mass communication of ideas possible, and we as teachers and learners should make full use of it. Already it is being used for research purposes on a large scale, much like people might use a library, but currently its capacity to interconnect *people* is being underused in traditional learning environments (see Web 2.0 usage study). And as Gee suggests, the ability to make use of such networks will be an important skill for future generations. 'The power of distribution - of storing knowledge in other people, texts, tools, and technologies - is really in the way in which all these things are networked together. The really important knowledge is in the network... not in any one "node", but in the network as a whole. Does the network store lots of powerful knowledge? Does it ensure that this knowledge moves quickly and well to the parts of the system that need it now? Does it adapt to changed condtions by learning new things quickly and well? These are the most crucial knowledge questions we can ask in the modern world. They are hardly reflected at all in how we organize schooling and assessment in schooling'. So (without blowing our e-horn here) when you compare the highly adaptive network of knowledge, people and skills created for and by students of this course, with a traditional single desk classroom structure, one can clearly see the greater scope for knowledge distribution, peer learning and learning that adapts quickly to the requirements of the teacher, students and the subject area as a whole. Within such a networked learning framework, a competitive ethos where students compete against each other by hoarding knowledge, makes the network as a whole suffer. However, when students compete to become a more *active* 'node' in the system (such as during the Second Life tasks in this module), the individual and collective learning that takes place increases.

This direction towards networked learning is not just important from a learning perspective, but it will also be important for preparing students for a networked society and the so-called knowledge economy. It is estimated that by the year 2020 the greatest employer will be the *self*, for every 100 full-time jobs there will be 2000 part-time jobs, and peoples' working life will involve on average seven complete careers changes (Negroponte, 2000). So students must learn now how to manage multiple tasks and to constantly learn new skills to adapt to rapidly changing work environments. But in teaching only knowledge items, and not how to make best use of networks for storing and disseminating knowledge, schools are ill-preparing students for skills they'll need in the workplace. As Gee writes, 'if we want to know how good students are in science - or how good employees are in a modern knowledge-centered workplace - we should ask all of the following (and not just the first): What is in their heads? How well can they leverage knowledge in other people and in various tools and technologies (including their environment)? How are they positioned within a network that connects them in rich ways to other people and various tools and technologies?'. He then goes on to highlight that, 'schools tend to care only about what is inside students' heads ..., isolated from others, from tools and technologies, and from rich environments that help make them powerful nodes in networks. Good workplaces in our science- and technology-driven "new capitalism" don't play this game. Schools that do are, in my view, DOA in our current world - and kids who play videogames know it'. Thus schools could do better to encouraging uses of networking tools for learning, which at present, young people are already better than their teachers at using.

So part of helping schools to apply Gee's theories on literacy and learning will come from a greater integration of digital thinking and collaboration tools in the classroom. I don't mean to say that increased use of technology is the *only* way forward, but simply that it provides some of the answers. I was recently speaking to a young boy who had just been grounded by his parents, and had had his computer and his mobile phone taken away from him. He didn't like it - yet this is what schools do to kids all the time. As Gee mentions, 'in school we test people without their thinking tools... we want to know what they can do all by themselves. But in the modern world - and this is certainly true of many modern high-teck workplaces- it is equally or more important to know what people can think and do with others and with various tools and technologies.' While there is some argument for encouraging abilities such as handwriting and mental arithmetic without assistance, there are also plenty of reasons for testing just how well students get on *with* computerised tools. A carpenter may come with something of value with a pocket knife - but imagine what she could do with full access to her workshop. As David Shaffer, author of 'How video games help children learn', expains at a conference entitled 'Do video games help kids learn?', allowing computers to substitute some of our basic cognition helps us to do more. Like the invention of paper and writing before enabled humans to share and store knowledge, computers take care of basic (and complex) thinking processes so we can do other things. Networked learning and society doesn't necessarily entail that individuals then become insignificant nodes of a collective beast. Rather both the individual and the network become enriched by the value that each brings to the other.

So in conclusion, there is much that Gee has to say that highlights current inadequacies in mainstream education. But this not to say that current schools systems are shockingly bad, or that teachers are failing pupils on a massive scale. It is just that the potential for computer and network technology is making traditional whiteboard-and-pen teaching seem insufficient. And the good news is that younger generations (or digital natives) are already becoming highly proficient at making use of these new tools, partly because they recognise the value in their potential. As Gee writes about video games, which are really just one product of this digital revolution: 'They situate meaning in a multimodal space through embodied experiences to solve problems and reflect on the intricacies of the design on imagined worlds and the design of both real and imagined social relationships and identitiies in the modern world. ... And people get wildly entertained to boot.' If only regular lessons could start to get even close inspiring similar engagement. The earlier that teachers and schools start recognising and utilising the value of these digital thinking tools the better.

Bonus Level - Web 2.0 usage study: support for Welcome to Digitalia

2007-04-05T08:34:00.000-07:00

Stumbled accross this fascinating up-to-date research study into Web 2.0 usage in the UK. The author David White of Oxford University, who was also referenced in the recent JISC report on E-Learning, clearly identifies the volume and characteristics of popular web 2.0 functions. The report indicates predictably that for almost every internet Web 2.0 function (social bookmarking, content sharing, blogging, etc) the Under 18 age group has the highest percentage of users.

What is also interesting is that use of Wikis, Wikipedia, reading blogs and discussion forums is about the same in all age groups, even up to the 65-74 age bracket. It seems that some web 2.0 functions have caught on much quicker in the older age groups, perhaps due to their tendency towards 'serious' content.

There is also evidence of online games/spaces use, where games such as World of Warcraft and Half Life are predominantly favoured by young people, whereas Second Life appears to have a much broader age appeal.

Further down the report, a graph of overall engagement clearly highlights the disparity of use between the ages, but future predictions indicate a levelling off as individuals move through the age groups.

If web 2.0 functions have great potential for learning, as I have argued in previous postings, and the 40 plus age group is currently under-using them as teaching resources, then it proves a greater need for teacher education on how the internet might be put to full use. See 'Welcome to Digitalia' below for how that might be accomplished.

Bonus level - Welcome to Digitalia

2007-04-04T08:25:00.000-07:00

I have had an idea brewing over the past month or so, which I had intended to submit as my game design assignment - but with the Digital Earth competition taking this over, have just decided to note down the bones of it here.

*Welcome to Digitalia*

The main aim of this website-based game is to teach teachers about digital functions that young people use all the time, giving them direct practice and ideas for educational use.

Digitalia is a fictitious country in which children are the main inhabitants (or 'natives'). The home page contains links to information about some of the customs (social networking, blogging, Web 2.0 functions, games, etc), artefacts (internet, iPod, computer, etc) and some of the learning preferences (teamwork, parallel processing, hypertext thinking, etc) of the Digitalia Natives (DNs).
It also has a Visa application process for Digitalia Immigrants (DIs) who want to access the country. As part of the application process, teachers (or whoever) mustcomplete a series of tasks/games/challenges, each relating to technology and Web 2.0 functions such as blogging, making podcasts, using Del.icio.us, Wikis, and Google Earth, etc., which relate to how they might be integrated into teaching practice.

The game is also designed to encourage some of the skills needed to flourish in the information age, such as:

Play — the capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-solving

Performance — the ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and discovery

Simulation — the ability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real-world processes

Appropriation — the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content

Multitasking — the ability to scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed to salient details

Distributed Cognition — the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental capacities

Collective Intelligence — the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal

Judgment — the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources

Transmedia Navigation — the ability to follow the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities

Networking — the ability to search for,synthesize,and disseminate information

Negotiation — the ability to travel across diverse communities,discerning and respecting multiple perspectives and grasping and following alternative norms.

(taken from NML white paper - see below)

There is also scope for automated character interaction via email, video, audio, etc. However, unlike most popular ARGs which unfold in real-time (Perplex City for example), this is designed for individual players to go through at their own pace (like BBC's Jamie Kane), though some team-working with other applicants will be required.

Once the visa application process is complete, the older generation can become Digitalia Natives themselves!

[This game links in with some of the work carried out by the New Media Literacies project, which seeks to identify and inform teachers about the various skills required for the information age, as well as helping 'children to learn what they need to know to become fuller participants in the new media landscape. NML combines an interesting group of researchers and educators, including Henry Jenkins (Convergence Culture, 2006) and Ravi Purushotma, who have done much research into the educational potential of digital games, and ARGs especially.

They have recently produced the NML White Paper (2007), which goes into great detail about children's media use and the related skills they are developing in using internet-linked technologies - skills that are well-suited to a forthcoming knowledge economy, but which currently schools are failing to address. The paper coins the phrase *Participatory Culture* to describe the younger generation's practice of creating and sharing media content. The paper explains that 'a participatory culture is a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices. A participatory culture is also one in which members believe their contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection with one another'. The point about informal mentorship is particularly interesting from an educational perspective, as this describes a peer-to-peer learning process that many teachers (the good ones at least) would love to see from their students. Other potential benefits of a participatory culture include 'the diversification of cultural expression, the development of skills valued in the modern workplace [see Gee, Hull and Lankshear 1996, 'The New Work Order'], and a more empowered conception of citizenship'. These are all benefits that teachers really ought to be capitalising on, and a game like Welcome to Digitalia might be a useful tool for helping them do this.]

Level 9 - Diminishing the Digital Divide revisited - Games to bridge the Generation Gap

2007-03-12T08:18:00.000-07:00

Articles by Prensky, Oblinger and Squire, a recently published Demos article entitled 'Their Space: Education for a Digital Generation' (Green and Hannon, 2007), plus several other commentators, all highlight a significant difference between current generations in terms of their familiarity with computers, the internet and technology (or lack of it). This raises important issues for educators at ALL levels, in particular how these technologies can be put to best use in order to engage students without creating a 'digital dependence' where human relationships and overall learning might suffer. One way of engaging both students *and* teachers with digital technology is through games - and it is a potential that games have to bridge this divide that I want to explore further here.

To recap briefly on this digital disparity, Oblinger draws up 3 general but useful distinctions between generations and their understanding and comfort with ICTs (this includes internet use): Boomers, the 40+ age group, might be classed as 'digital migrants', or those who did not grow up surrounded by computers and associated technology, but had to learn about them at a later stage; Gen-Xers (which I fall into) who were the first generation to grow up with (albeit rudimentary) computers and who are the first 'digital natives'; and Millenials, or 'digital natives 2.0' who were born after 1982, and who are completely au fait with computers, internet and associated linking gadgets such as mobile phones, iPods etc. Millenials have also been classed as Generation-C - where C stands for Content - meaning that for this generation, creation of 'consumer generated content plays a significant role in their social life, generating streams of new text, images, audio and video on an ongoing basis'. These characterisations are extremely useful for educators of the Boomer generation who wish to better understand and inform the younger generations, and to an extent vice versa.

If responsibility to adapt rests with one generation more than another, it must surely be more with teachers than with students (though teachers will probably disagree), as digital proficiency is becoming the dominant paradigm. When pupils enter the job market, a large number of roles (in developed countries at least), will involve some basic technological know-how. So for teachers to do their job well nowadays, it's becoming more necessary to adopt methods that inform and appeal to what might be termed the "information-age mind-set." As Oblinger writes, 'the attitudes - and aptitudes - of students who have grown up with technology appear to differ from those of students who rarely use technology." She cites Jason Frand, who lists ten key attributes of this emerging mind-set: "[1] Computers aren't technology; [2] Internet is better than TV; [3] Reality is no longer real (re: potential inaccuracies of digital content); [4] Doing is more important than knowing; [5] Learning more closely resembles Nintendo than logic; [6] Multi-tasking is a way of life; [7] Typing is preferred to handwriting; [8] Staying connected is essential; [9] Zero tolerance of delays; and [10] Consumer and creator are blurring." These all combine to highlight fairly significant changes in how young people process information. Charles Monereo (The virtual construction of the mind: the role of educational psychology, 2004) explains this cognitive change well. "Just as steps from oral culture to written culture and then from writing into printing had clear repercussions for forms of learning and thinking, the transition from the printed culture to this new digital culture will have diverse consequences for our cognition". As Prensky has also recognised, DN's cognitive processes have been moulded by their immersion in a digital environment.

In particular, point [4] above marks a giant step, where knowledge accumulation needs no longer be a principle goal of education, as information can be easily accessed and needn't necessarily be stored in an individual's brain (see Gee 2003 on *distributed knowledge*). Monereo again, describes this distinction, writing that "technological migrants [Boomers] regard knowledge as something that they possess, something that they carry around with them; technological natives [Gen-X onwards] see it as something that they obtain through a set of applications and instruments. This distinction modifies substantially notions such as intelligence, wisdom and ability." This change also has significant epistemological ramifications. Once again Monereo raises this issue. "For the older generation there have always been universal truths, both scientific and moral... But for the younger generation, "everything depends"; all truths are relative and depend on who, when, how, and why they are stated; they are never independent of their utterer or their context." This is a considerable, and I think exciting, philosophical change that teachers must accommodate - teaching that knowledge is absolute will not convince our young learners; they will want to explore the bigger picture, and then make their own minds up. [See the excellent Civil War History Game, cited by Oblinger, which provides students with a broad range of documents relating to the civil war, encouraging them to view sources as a multitude of opinions, not facts, and to synthesize a broad range data to form opinions of their own.]

I also feel that Frand's point [5] above, 'Learning more closely resembles Nintendo than logic', also points to a growing problem that teachers face - how to engage students in ways that complex problem-solving computer games might, with high levels of interactivity, a compelling narrative and a multimedia experience. Recognising and accomodating these changes will I think prove to be an important challenge for teachers over the coming years, moving away from linear, textbook-based learning, to classes that, in Oblinger's words, 'give way to simulations, games and collaboration'. To address this problem, teachers must recognise that Millenials exhibit distinct learning styles, as Clare Raines suggests in 'Managing Millenials'. Millenials' learning preferences embrace "teamwork, technology, structure, entertainment & excitement [and] experiential activities", which differ significantly to those of the Boomer generation when they were at school, which reflected an older paradigm of individualism, knowledge acquisition and rote learning. And here lies a challenge faced by Boomers in management positions in schools, colleges and universities: how can they tailor the way that teaching and learning is presented to engage the students of the tech-generations, while also inspiring teachers of an older paradigm? If they do not, there is a danger of disenfranchising large numbers of young people, and teachers too, perhaps even turning them off from education completely.

If we look closely again at the learning preferences of both generations, we can see them mirrored in the qualities of a well-designed game, paticularly ARGs. *Good* games will often involve teamwork, technology, entertainment, excitement and experience, but *will also embrace* individualism and knowledge acquisition. For examples of such games see The Go Game, Futurelab's Savannah and MIT's Augmented Reality Games, and for a clear example of individualism and teamwork combined, see this BBC article about the winner of Perplex City. Games therefore have the potential to appeal to learning preferences on both sides of the divide, so long as they are well designed. And while gaming is never likely to be the primary pedagogic methodology, games have the (in my limited view) unique potential for uniting both natives and immigrants in a digital and non-digital cause.

But as Squire writes (Changing the game, 2005), 'as challenging as it is to design a good educational game, it may be more challenging to design a good educational system for an educational games to flourish in'. Changes are likely to be slow, but as Green and Hannon point out (2007), change is becoming more necessary. 'In an economy driven by knowledge rather than manufacturing, employers are already valuing very different skills, such as creativity, communication, presentation skills and team-building. Schools are at the front line of this change and need to think about how they can prepare young people for the future workplace.' Squire (2005) also comments on this need for change (citing Gee, Hull, and Lankshear 1996; and Reich 1990), writing that 'learning to identify problems and then devise solutions across several domains is uncommonly found in school, but precisely the kind of skill valued among knowledge workers in the new economy'. With business influencing much of school policy decision-making nowadays (which is another discussion altogether), it is likely that schools will be pushed into better preparing students for this 'new capitalism' or knowledge economy. And the great news for students, which teachers must eventaully recognise, is that digital games appear to instill precisely the qualities that knowledge workers require.

[The UK government recognises the skills required for enterprise which is a step toward the skills mentioned above. See the Determined to Succeed initiative for Scotland's answer to encouraging enterprise, team-working and ambition]

Bonus Level - Games for appreciating other cultures

2007-03-05T08:11:00.000-08:00

Gee's (2003) fascinating analysis of the *Under Ash* computer game, in which a Palestinian boy fights with Israeli soldiers and occupiers, got me thinking about the potential of VGs for giving players immersive experiences of cultures. While the notion of fighting against Israeli soldiers may be abhorrent to some (mainly Israelis), a relativist view would see it as no different to creating a game where an American soldier kills Arabs (of which Gee gives an extreme example of the game *Ethnic Cleansing*). What is interesting is that the very outcry for protection from kids playing games that go against the cultural standards, suggest the implication that playing such a game has the potential for significantly affecting a child's (or even and adult's) belief system. Which means that this tool is potentially powerful, but for both good and ill.

There is a fascinating documentary film *Judah and Mohammed*, which tracks a year in the life of two fifteen year old boys, one Israeli and one Palestinian. The film clearly highlights the entrenched cultural models that each child is growing up in, from the media they absorb, the conversations with their friends and family, and most alarmingly, the versions of history they are taught at school. In comparing their two lives, the viewer can't help but appreciate the deterministic fate that both boys are tied into, with each of their cultures so heavily imposed on them, and with the boys so determined to uphold their own cultural values. In spite of sharing similar interests and hobbies, the situation is such that the two boys could never be friends. A compromise between their two cultures seems even further away.

How could one of these diametrically opposed cultures ever reach a resolution? One way is to fight the other culture until one or the other gives in. A more diplomatic solution would be to try to understand where the other is coming from, recognise similar experiences and pastimes, and work to resolve differences with peaceful means. Media and literature have always been effective tools for supporting both war and peace. For war, propaganda through news reports, films etc is notoriously effective at imposing cultural values. Likewise for peace, objective and investigative news and films such as the one mentioned above, can highlight the misery of war, and the suffering it causes. With the rise of the internet and accessibility of digital media (see the Iraq war YouTube videos), information has become more readily available and this has in many respects been a force for peace. Governments are less able to hide behind disinformation (though some still do a good job of it), and activists are more able to communicate abuses of power. With this 'power of transparency' in mind, and following the success of his Shoah interviews, Stephen Spielberg's recent program involves giving video cameras to Israelis and Palestinians which will then be swapped later, as a way of helping the two cultures to appreciate their similarities, instead of focusing on their differences. IMHO this a very progressive and potentially beneficial approach to take (though of course this is just my cultural model speaking).

But as Gee mentions, 'interactive media like video games are a more powerful device than such passive media'. And this is where VGs could potentially come in use - as a means for appreciating the experiences of others, in an experiential, immersive environment, thus beginning to move people away from entrenched cultural models that demand the hating of another group of people, to a model that is more appreciative and less aggressive. As Gee writes, 'far more interactively than you could in any novel or movie, you would have experienced the 'other' from the inside'. So a game like Food Force, which I've mentioned in a previous posting, far from being an insensitive mockery of a serious issue like famine, is actually a very powerful way of encouraging 'players' to appreciate the experience of hungry people.

So in an ironic twist, the playing of violent video games might, if employed with ethical intentions, actually be a valuable force for peace. Gee suggests that 'if we are willing to take none but our own side, even in play, then violence would seem inevitable'. In homage to Kane's vision of a 'play ethic', VGs as diplomatic anti-propaganda will hopefully be something we see more of in the future.

LEVEL 8 - ARGs: Using alternate realities teach about real realities

2007-03-01T08:06:00.000-08:00

In terms of cognitive challenge, a well-designed ARG can be extremely demanding, so much so that players must rely on a 'collective community' to solve problems. ARGs will often require players to become adept at deciphering hidden codes, and this is sure to develop highly analytical thinking, yet also often needs creative 'out-of-the-box' ideas. It also indirectly teaches web 2.0 savvy, as much of ARG content is distributed through multimedia, forums, blogs, interactive websites and the internet - a player cannot help but become accustomed with these functions.

Not only does an ARG develop intricate research skills and attention to detail, but also require players to synthesize often huge amounts of data (see Perplex City) to figure out complex plot lines and problems. In the ARG white paper (2006), Martin and Chatfield sum this up well: 'ARGs teach us to heighten our ability to winnow patterns out of the otherwise seemingly random and meaningless data in the wider world'. Gee (2003) recognises this 'pattern thinking' as being very powerful. Not only does it allow us to 'think and reason by using the experiences we have had in life', but it also 'allows us to make guesses (predictions) about the world that go beyond our actual experiences'. Thus the practice of forming complex connections playing an ARG enables us to form similarly complex connections in our everyday lives.

THE immERsion that args can crEate IS ALSO a POTENTIALly powerful and valuable asset. As Martin and Chatfield (2006) write, 'args take the substance of everyday life and weave it inTO narratives that LAYER additional MEANING, depth and interaction upon the real world'. An interesting example of this (White Paper, 2006) comes from participants of the game *Last Call Poker*, who were 'encouraged throughout the game to visit local cemeteries and complete simple open-ended missions such as cleaning up gravesites, leaving flowers, and writing letters to people who had passed away. These events became deeply meaningful to players who participated. Additionally, this generated much conversations about the historic use of cemeteries as parks, the state of older cemeteries, and how to best remember and honor life'.

So instead of players viewing a screen and projecting their identity elsewhere as in other digital learning games, ARGs actually require the player to play themselves, embodying themselves fully in the fantasy scenario, providing fully-situated meaning. If it can be argued (Gee, 2003) that experience of projective identities contributes to deep learning, in that gaming requires players to 'see themselves in terms of a new identity..., the kind of person who can learn, use and value the new semiotic domain', then experiencing a new domain *as yourself* is likely to increase this contribution. From Turner and Morrison's experience (Turner and Morrison, 2005) of creating an ARG as a pedagogic tool for undergraduate students, it seems that this increased immersion is potentially compelling. They write that an ARG 'targets and implements a way to engage students with theoretical concepts by giving the a practice-based and relevant pathway with which to engage'. They also found that students developed self-directed learning processes, which standard school practices often struggle to instill.

Another strong feature of ARGs is the communities and forums that form to share clues and theories, enabling players to pool their expertise for a common cause. This is a strong expression of what Henry Jenkins of MIT calls the *conversion culture* (about which he's written a book of the same name), which reflects three core ideas: convergence, participatory culture and collective intelligence - where convergence is the 'flow of content across multiple media platforms', participatory culture is the inverse of 'older notions of passive media spectatorship' and collective intelligence is the ethic heralded by Pierre Levy 'based on sharing rather than hoarding knowledge'. Schools and education institutes should be aware of this cultural phenomenon, as children immersed in this culture are likely to find the passive absorption of knowledge uninspiring (which schools *are* trying to change). [Nor will students be engaged by the individual acquisition and retention of knowledge outside of integrated networks, which Gee (2003) recognises in school systems, but criticizes as being poor preparation for a knowledge economy]. This having to resort to teamwork encourages significant networking skills, and as Christy Dena (ARG white paper, 2006) writes, can enlighten producers of media, and teachers too, in 'how to design for participation, provide insight into tools for empowerment... and also illuminate the nature of communication and networks in general'.

In terms of what makes a good ARG, it seems that direct character interaction offers massive appeal. This is a concept that no media or literature format has really exploited (you cannot email characters in films) - and I feel marks a significant leap forward for the entertainment industry. Even receiving an email that you know is automated, like from a character in the BBC's Jamie Kane, gives you a feeling of being part of the story. This feature, where you know that its just a game, but are never quite sure, tends to foster an enticing sense of curiosity (for me anyway) - and it's reported that good ARGs never give the game away (tho some, like Perplex City, make no attempts to hide the fact that they are a game). When you combine these elements with complex problems, a compelling story and a bit of old-fashioned mystery, you have a format for a very appealing game.

Which are all principles I am trying to weave into the design of an ARG to submit for a Digital Earth competition (and course assignment), which intends to promote and involve players with DE software, while encouraging reflection and action on climate change issues. I am finding the process both extremely challenging yet rewarding - and at this stage with 3 weeks to go till the deadline have a slightly overwhelming sense that this is likely to occupy much of my waking life over the coming weeks. But if ARGs can hold great learning potential for their players, who knows what they can do for their designers! ;-)

Level 7 - Good games 2.0

2007-03-01T08:04:00.000-08:00

In my previous posting on what makes a good game, I identified *playability* - roughly, an opportunity for experimentation and exploration; *competition/challenge* - the game is not too easy nor too hard, and offers some contest, either against another person or the VDU; and *primacy* (Rouse, 2001) - an elusive quality in which the player becomes immersed in the game. Having since read Tom Malone's articles (seminal - judging by the amount of times they are referenced by others), it is clear that these initial suggestions of key qualities, while useful, can be refined. In his article, What makes things fun to learn?, Malone tries to get right to the heart of which qualities encourage *intrinsic motivation* (Lepper and Greene, 1979) - 'of what makes an activity fun or rewarding for its own sake rather than for the sake of some external reward'. He identifies three key areas: *challenge* (which I referred to in the previous posting), *fantasy* and *curiosity* (which I did not).

The challenge element of a game is an obvious essential. If it's too easy, the outcome is likely to be certain, making the game futile (having said this, there seems to be a new breed of games offering a kind of pointless but aesthetically meditative gameplay, with little challenge, but are somehow addictive - see Flow in Games and the excellent FlyGuy); too hard and players are quickly demotivated. Providing an appropriate goal offers a motivation for the challenge, and by appropriate I mean something that is relevant to the world view of the player. Malone cites an interesting study by Morozova (1955) into the motivational capacity of goals. Children reading a passage on latitude and longitude were more engaged by a version involving a child hero trying to find her location. Malone reflects on several intriguing qualities of such a goal which I think are fundamental to good *learning* game design: [1] 'Using the skill being taught was a means to achieving the goal, but was not the goal in itself' - hence the learning was kind of slipped in through the back door so to speak; children were learning about mapping without even realising. [2] ' The goal was part of an intrinsic fantasy' - where the skill depended on the fantasy, adding to the potential for immersion. And [3] 'the goal was one with which the child readers could identify' - this is element of a target that this relevant to the play is key to their engagement (an olympic athlete is unlikely to be inspired by the goal of a deep-fried mars bar, for instance).

I hadn't picked up on the fantasy element of a game being such a strong motivator, but of course, almost every game requires the player to take on the role of a fantasy identity, a process that is apparently extremely fulfilling. In monopoly for instance, players take on the role of capitalist property developer (often to alarming degrees!), in Civilisation games, the player is a great leader, in 1st-person-shooters, the player is often a goodie trying to eliminate the baddies, even playing chess, the player acts as a kind of omnipotent being directing their army. As Malone points out, fantasies in games 'derive some of their appeal from the emotional needs they help to satisfy in the people who play them'. Thus, we are intrigued by games that precipitate emotional responses, and explains why so many games 'embody emotionally-involving fantasies like war, destruction and competition'. This attraction to an emotional narrative, does not of course just apply to gaming domains, but can be recognised throughout human history in mythology, folkloric stories, and in modern times in novels, films and music. [This is IMHO a powerful counter to the claim that VGs are too violent - that violence and war has permeated human narratives for thousands of years. Try telling the Greeks that their gory battle myths are unsuitable for children under 15, or telling the Tibetans that their visions of hell - too graphic even for this weblog - are unnecessarily profane.] The key point to remember in designing games for instructional use though, is that 'different people will find different fantasies appealing'. As one of Malone's studies found (in 'Heuristics for designing enjoyable user interfaces'), girls playing a maths darts game found the darts fantasy unappealing, whereas the darts element really appealed to the boys. Some games get round this problem by offering the opportunity to be one of several characters, thus widening the appeal to a greater number of users, but this level of adaptability may not be relevant in all cases. Needless to say, designers should be aware of likes and dislikes relating to social groups such as gender, race, age, etc.

The final characteristic Malone recognises in good games is curiosity, which he defines as the attraction to environments which have an 'optimal level of informational complexity (Berlyne, 1965; Piaget, 1952)'. He later reflects that a game should be 'novel and suprising, but not completely incomprehensible'. These qualities, in my view, link very closely to the potential for immersion in a game. The greater the curiosity invoked by a task, the greater the likelihood of undistracted effort, leading ultimately to a 'flow state' (see Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Mihalyi Csikszentmihaly, 1991) in which the participant is completely absorbed in their actions.

Malone identifies two main features of curiosity: *sensory* and *cognitive* curiosity. Sensory curiosity, or the attraction to lights, music, movement, images etc. is for ever being satisfied by computer games in more sophisticated ways. Current arcade machines will more the player's entire body, adding bumps and loud noise at every opportunity. Likewise, current technology (as can be seen with the Nintendo Wii) is giving players a much more immersive sensory role in the game, massively adding to the appeal.

I am, however more interested in cognitive curiosity, or 'the desire to bring better "form" to one's knowledge structure'. This curiosity can be credited for inspiring people to complete challenges, from puzzles and crosswords to 'feature-length' VGs, but also to resolve any problem that is not fully understood. This is surely at the very heart of a person's motivation to learn anything, the desire to make what was previously unknown, understood. Malone suggests that 'people are motivated to bring to all their cognitive structures three of the characteristics of well-formed scientific theories: completeness, consistency, and parsimony'. Thus, in Gestalt psychotherapy terminology (Fritz Perls, The Gestalt Approach, 1973), people seek cognitive *closure* to unresolved problems, and this experience of closure is in itself rewarding.

Of course not every game does, or should, include all these criteria for 'goodness', but these qualities of playability, challenge, primacy, fantasy and curiosity, certainly make the game appealing. As I have previously mentioned, designers of 'learning' games could learn a lot from COTS games with mass appeal and involving the features in GBL that make popular VGs so attractive is a good start. As a further note on teaching in general, these features of a good game can apply not only to games, but to course development as a whole. Understanding what engenders primacy and cognitive curiosity in learners is extremely valuable knowledge for teachers of any subject.

Bonus level - Reflections on Second Life Tasks

2007-02-26T08:01:00.000-08:00

The 'treasure hunt' tasks during this course have been a useful tool for exploring the environment and potentials of SL. Having a goal to accomplish, which encourages research skills, problem-solving, in-world knowledge and creativity, alongside the added element of competition against fellow students (and a Linden cash prize!), contribute to making a 'treasure hunt' challenge intrinsically motivating, in Malone's words (for me anyway). The student discussions that develop during each week are testament to the engaging quality of these tasks. I also appreciated the open-ended non-specific nature of some weeks' tasks - encouraging the students to act creatively, bringing about a diverse range of possible 'answers'.

News task
This was relatively straightforward, with 'hunters' discovering RL news sources such as Reuters, and SL specific news sources. The RL news outlets signify yet another digital means of accessing media information. With the increasing popularity of RSS feeds, podcasts and online news videos, SL offers an alternative way of distributing and consuming information. Whether SL based news sources will become as popular as other web-based suppliers remains to be seen.

Ivory Tower of Primitives
I had until this week been almost completely unaware of the accessibility of building applications within SL. I could appreciate that people were making all kinds of inanimate and animate objects, but thought that this required special expertise, far removed from my relative inexperience. However the Ivory Tower tutorials show just how easy building in SL can be (tho more complex creations of course take time and experience). This feature of SL, that it's inhabitants can really contribute to its overall design, is both appealing and valuable. A participant doesn't have to be a 'designer' to make something that serves a useful purpose. Hence SL environments (provided you pay for it) can be crafted to meet a range of educational needs, whether it's a simple class space, a museum, or even a presentation suite complete with video screen - without its creator being particularly well qualified. This versatility and 'maleability' of the SL environment is surely one of its greatest benefits, allowing it to be created by its inhabitants, thus increasing a greater sense of ownership. As Barry Brown and Marek Bell write with reference to a game called *There*, a precursor to SL, ' games occupy our attention for longer than many of the traditional office applications studied... . It is not only that games are an interesting new application of collaborative systems, but that in looking at games [we have] the opportunity to consider new purposes for the systems we design, and new social benefits that they can produce.' The ability to constuct the digital environment makes it a much more powerful tool for representing the needs of a digital generation. [From ''There' as a collaborative environment', Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work]

Buy and Sell task
This week's task offered a good insight into the economic system within SL. My research for interesting artefacts led me too 'The Yak Shack', an area provided by Save the Children, which offers yaks for sale, the proceeds of which go to impoverished families in Tibet. What someone is going to do with a digital representation of a yak, I don't know (tho apparently they are customisable, and can be entered into livestock competitions), but it is certainly and innovative way of raising money (albeit Linden dollars). People are obviously prepared to pay to enhance their image (with clothes and hairstyles) and their surroundings (buying plots of land) and this has created an entire micro-economy. I have yet to be persuaded to part with any RL money yet, but I suppose that if it enabled the creation of a learning zone that had practical applications, a fraction of the cost of a RL setting, it would certainly be money well spent.

Join a Group task
Joined the Pacman appreciation club. Couldn't resist having the title 'Pacman' hovering above my head.

Bonus level - Having a Second Life

2007-02-26T07:45:00.000-08:00

From a personal point of view I find the topics of Second Life, virtual/fantasy worlds and avatars one of the most fascinating that we have touched on so far in this course - yet haven't really covered any of this in this blog so far. There are many features that interest me about Second Life, which probably require an entire semester to cover but hopefully I can at least lay down a few ideas about why I think SL is such a valuable, exciting and perhaps dangerous medium, not just for educators, but also for anyone who communicates with others online.

My initial impression of in-world 'talk' is that there is undoubtedly a significant shift in dynamics when three dimensional graphics are involved, as opposed to a simple SMS system. A 'person' can move around, approach people, fly, and visit things much like we do with our physical bodies. This is a quantum leap from a simple text discussion, like we experience in most online communication, and adds a far more intuitive (tho by no means perfect) dimension to communication. Studies have shown that a significant amount of f2f communication is non-verbal, ie we are very sensitive to body language, and will form assumptions, both consciously and unconsciously, by interpreting how other people occupy physical space. While communication in SL is not nearly as complex as in 'first life' (FL), and text is still the norm, it does appear to be somewhat richer than say email, SMS or other text-based networking sites. Avatars can make fairly complex gestures and actions which add a physical context to any written words - like taking the 'smileys' a great leap forward. Avatars can also make basic sounds, and as audio capabilities increase to the point that people are able to chat via microphones, the depth of communication is likely to increase (though I am not entirely sure how managable it might be having a number of people speaking at the same time - perhaps similar to a FL situation). However, as it stands now, having a 3D virtual space to occupy appears to make communication easier and more engaging than most other online means.[I would be interested to know whether people find it more engaging using SL than live video link-up?]

My next impression is that SL and other virtual worlds invite a whole host of interesting questions in terms of psychology of users, the economics and sociology of the virtual society and the anthropology of virtual cultures. Do these worlds simply offer mindless escapism, or can it be a mentally and emotionally rewarding experience? How is identity constructed? Is there a point where becoming immersed in a virtual world becomes psychologically and socially unsettling for people? And can it lead to deeper self-knowledge and learning? As a starting point, it might be worth considering plain fact that these virtual worlds are instinctively appealing to literally millions of users. Why is this so? In his article Living Digitally: Embodiment in Virtual Worlds (in The Social Life of Avatars, Schroeder ed. 2002), Taylor provides some interesting case studies on this subject, writing that 'some users have even come to identify their avatar as "more them" than their corporeal body'. This I find slightly unsettling, though as one avid SL fan blogged, 'our corporeal body is merely an avatar too. We are simply a vessel of meat and water that carries our tenuous consciousness from place to place'. It seems that existence as an avatar certainly enables people to express themselves, perhaps even in ways they cannot with their corporeal body. As Meg put it, one of Taylors subjects, "I usually change my av [avatar] to suit my moods, or to experiment with others' reactions to different appearances, or to see how different looks affect my own action s and comfort levels". Another subject wrote that her avatar 'absolves (herself) of some of the responsibilitiy of "acting human"'. Many users claim such similar experiences of liberation. One even goes so far as to say, ' "I see being an avatar as sort of a long-term self-exploration and even self-reconfiguration" '.

Gee (2003) relates a similar experience of self-understanding through fantasy game playing, writing that 'a good role-playing video game makes me think new thoughts about what I value and what I do not'. Developing an avatar or in-game alter-ego requires an assessment and recognition of values in out-of-game experience, whether or not the in-game character upholds these values. In Gee's view, participants 'must come to see this virtual identity as their own project in the making, an identity they take on that entails a certain trajectory through time defined by their own values, desires, choices, goals, and actions. This is what creates ownership.' He calls this the 'Self-Knowledge Principle', suggesting that in taking on and playing with identities, making choices that determine the history of a character, and taking risks where real-world consequences are lowered (Erickson's psychosocial moratorium), then 'learners learn not only about the domain but about themselves and their current and potential capacities'. It seems that in spite of limitations of movement, actions and auditory speech, people find that being in a virtual world offers significant freedom of expression and opportunity for in-game and out-of-game self development and identity creation.

Another interesting feature is that life as an avatar can be particularly helpful for people who can struggle to communicate and socialise effectively in f2f settings. There was an interesting study done in Nottingham with people with ASDs (Autism Spectrum Disorders), who found it easier to cope with communication in a virtual avatar-based world, for the following reasons: [1] The user has active control over their participation in the VE; [2] Interaction can take place without face-to-face communication which many people with autism find particularly confusing; [3] The social complexity of the situation and the non-verbal and verbal features of communication can be directly controlled and manipulated; and [4] Interaction takes place within an environment that is safe from potentially negative real world consequences. The research showed that the VE significantly helped people with ASDs in learning social skills, and provides an interesting example of how the unique features of a VE can be exploited for learning. (See www.virart.nott.ac.uk/asi for more info)

While I've only touched on some of the reasons why SL might be engaging for users, when you couple this potential with an increased facilitation of communication, it is clear that SL and other virtual worlds will provide online educators with an extremely valuable medium for teaching. The challenge over the coming years is how to manage and design effective courses, while continuing to explorie the many avenues of teaching and learning that might arise. Watching the NMC's (New Media Consortium) vision of what a virtual campus might look like is like watching a science fiction film. Only this future is likely to be months from now, as opposed to years.

LEVEL 6 - Towards meaningful play and gaming

2007-02-20T07:57:00.000-08:00

If gaming is to be accepted and encouraged in mainstream education as a valid and effective teaching practice then it must overcome one of its biggest hurdles: the notion that playing games is meaningless distraction and of no real value. As I mentioned in my previous entry, modern culture's general image of play tends to disregard the more 'mature' benefits of rule-informed playing, such as the mental and verbal contests that Huizinga recognises in sophisticated disciplines such as politics, philosophy and law. The potential value of play for adults tends to be subsumed by the perception of play as something that's infantile and foolish, and for children only. The 'work ethic' mentality, that has arisen since the industrial revolution, compelling the workforce to toil relentlessly and efficiently, has contributed to the opinion that play and games have no place in an adult (or even young adult) work or learning environment - work is qualitatively distinct from play. In spite of play now being generally acknowledged as a necessary feature of our free time, the general view is that *work and play are irreconcilable* - at least in any self-respecting organisation. However, it is clear from research and anecdotal evidence that work and play *are* compatible. And that when play and games are embraced thoughtfully in a work and/or learning environment, the results can be *better* than they would be without their influence. Games and play are not just mindless distractions, but can in fact facilitate meaningful developments psychologically, socially and functionally.

Kane's chapter 2 of 'The Play Ethic: A manifesto for a different way of living' is a compelling call-to-arms for play and gaming enthusiasts. (In spite anything with *manifesto* in the title tending to be somewhat one-sided!). Drawing on rich sources from literature, culture, history and science, he presents a persuasive case for the importance of play in personal and social development, and in scientific endeavour. He goes as far as to present the case for a *play ethic*, a way of living and working that it is in his view more personally fulfilling and better suited to present day life than a 'work ethic'. In his words, the 'play ethic is about counterposing a purely neo-liberal, capitalist network with a whole thicket of other networks - emotional and sexual, geographical and traditional, artistic and civic... [It's] a 21st century identity'. In spite of being perhaps a little overdone, he presents some convincing arguments and evidence for the benefits of play.

One of his propositions is that play contributes significantly to human progress and development. I have touched on this issue of play in development in previous postings, highlighting how play is a form of experimentation for infants. Kane echoes this point, writing that 'the consensus from biologists and psychologists, derived from over a century of observing animal and human play, is that play is a necessity, not a luxury, for advanced mammals.' In terms of education, there are a number of progressive educationalists who have recognised play's potential for inspiring children, most notably Froebel, who conceived of the now well-established Kindergarten - 'where children could blossom like flowers'. Froebel gave children 'play gifts', such as play-dough and crayons, etc. , so they could 'externalise consepts in their minds, rather than have 'the facts' imprinted on their brains. There are also a number of other unorthodox teaching methods championed by Maria Montessori, Rudolf Steiner, and Kurt Hahn among others, involving creative and undogmatic principles, which are only now beginning to creep in to mainstream thinking, though mainly at a primary level. The ultimate aim of these methods is not for the children to enjoy themselves, though this is often a welcome advantage, but to *facilitate effective learning*. What makes using play more effective? The answer lies in the brain. Kane references a New Scientist article which states that, 'early play in childhood is less about practising to fight and mate..., and much more about improving brain power at a crucially formative moment... The very act of playing seems to strengthen and extend the number of neural connections in the brain... Neuropsychologist Stephen Siviy, when observing brain chemistry under experimental conditions [says], 'play just lights everything up'.'

Another of Kane's more striking propositions is that much of modern scientific thinking and language is inspired by playfulness, which he proposes is a fitting attitude for the complexities of the present day. He uses examples of Schrodinger's half-serious thought experiment involving a cat at the mercy of the unpredictability of quantum theory, and Einstein's famous (misquoted) aphorism, 'God doesn't play dice with the universe'. References to play and gaming can be found throughout scientific research, and that some of the more recent sciences especially, such as chaos, complexity, systems and networks theory, actually require a playful vision to appreciate. Kane quotes Manfred Eigen and Ruthild Winkler as saying: 'Everything that happens in our world resembles a vast game in which nothing is determined but the rules, and only the rules are open to objective understanding'. Kane suggests that modern visions of the world require us to accept some of the apparently random and arbitrary nature of the universe, understanding the world better by 'entering into its games, by respecting its creativity, by joining in the play of living forms'. As biologist Brian Goodwin says, 'this realization that the ovarall behaviour of complex systems (like the weather, or the brain, or human society) cannot ultimately be predicted has 'enormous consequences'. "Real systems, and particularly living ones such as organisms, ecological systems and societies, are radically unpredictable in their behaviour"'. To progress in these uncertain fields, scientists must accept 'just how unpredicatbly creative the evolutionary process is', adopting a 'playful' attitude of both controlling/understanding and being controlled/challenged by our environment. Kane also cites Geoffrey Miller, whose book The Mating Mind, suggests that from an evolutionary perspective, 'nature commands that humans should play in order to survive and thrive.' With respect to Maslow's pyramid of needs, there is no priority in life that has greater *meaning* to humans than survival itself.

Accepting play as meaningful action can also mean acknowledging play's significant contribution to facilitating our development as people - by recognising play's contribution to selfhood, imagination and identity. Play enables us to fashion not only our early selves, but also throughout our adult development. As Kane writes, 'play is the primal force which built our early selves, and can revivify and infuse our adult selves with a craving for action and innovation.' As neuroscientific studies have shown, our brains 'light up' during play, even through adulthood. As Howard Gardner, the Harvard Educationalist and psychologist says: 'We play to master our self, our anxiety and the world.' So play helps us to develop as people, but also as groups. Playful group rituals such as festivals and parties helps us to bond as communities. On this subject Kane quotes Alessandro Falassi, whose book, Time out of Time, describes collective play as being a 'periodic renewal of the stream of the community by creating new energy ... which gives sanction to its institutions'. Thus collective play is a *meaningful* act of collaboration, encouraging reciprocal altruism, and enhanced civility (though not *always* of course).

So all in all, playful activities (including games) are valuable and meaningful activities, not just during leisure time, but also potentially during working hours and learning environments. Not only can playful activities lighten serious and monotonous work, they can also make it more efficient. And I agree with Kane's manifesto proposition, that play and games are especially necessary in our changing working and learning environments. Raigeleuth's and other's recognition that we have entered an *information age* [see appendix below] requires that we change our attitudes. As Kurt Squire writes, there is a growing recognition that traditional models of instruction, organized by modernist, scientific, rationalist social theory and assembly line metaphors for social organization are failing to work for us in the new economy. Like Reigeluth, Gee, and others, I argue that new organizing metaphors for learning and new models of learning environments are needed to respond to the social and economic realities of the 21st century'. Hence play and games offer one possible way of engaging young 'digital native' learners and the subsequent workers that grow up in the digital age.

Accepting the meaningfulness of play and games in education however, is likely to require some institutional reform, particularly in evaluation methodology. Play will often involve using imaginative and creative processes, but as Kane writes, 'how much 'imagination' can educators allow into the teaching process - when the currriculum is geared towards a competitive jobs market and is based on test reults rather than an open-ended journey towards understanding?'. This concern is likely to polarise educators, until at some point, the digital natives at home in the information age and the 'experience economy' will have their way. Finally, as Kane suggests, 'by recognising our essential ludicism, by dignifying our play with an ethical force, we can begin to create and act, rather than simply consume and spectate.' Let's hope this recognition comes sooner rather than later.

Appendix - Table 1: Changes in Global Economies (Reigeluth, 1999).
INDUSTRIAL AGE INFORMATION AGE
Standardization .......... Customization
Centralized control .......... Autonomy with accountability
Adversarial relationships .......... Cooperative relationships
Autocratic decision making.......... Shared decision making
Compliance .......... Initiative
Conformity .......... Diversity
One-way communications .......... Networking
Compartmentalization .......... Holism
Parts-oriented .......... Process-oriented
Teacher as "King" .......... Learner (customer) as "King"

Level 5 - The Diversity of Play

2007-02-15T07:55:00.000-08:00

I liked Jesper Juul's observation [in his article 'The repeatedly lost art of studying games'] about commentators' attitude to defining play: 'It is generally customary for writers on play and games to first describe their elusive character, discuss the impossibility of defining the terms, only to then use them freely and suggestively, indicating that there is after all some meaning attached to the words'. I realised that this was exactly the attitude I took in my previous weblog entry! In some respects, play is not really that elusive. Most people will have a good idea what is meant by *play* and *playing* in just about any context. And this is what impresses me about the notion of play, that it can be recognised and utilised/experienced, in a variety of different fields and purposes.

As Sutton-Smith writes in his book The Ambiguity of Play, 'almost anything can allow play to occur within its boundaries'. Play, as a concept or attitude, has a variety of different applications, which he categorises as follows [only one example of each given]: 'Mind or subjective play (daydreams); Solitary play (hobbies); Playful behaviours (playing tricks); Informal social play (joking); Vicarious audience play (spectator sports); Performance play (playing music); Celebrations and festivals (carnivals); Contests (the Olympics); Risky or deep play (rock climbing)'. This list shows just how ways play can be experienced. He then goes on to cite works on 'tourism as play (McCannel, 1976), television as play (Stephenson, 1967), day dreaming as play (Caughey, 1984), sexual intimacy as play (Betcher, 1987), and even gossip as play (Spack, 1986)'.

In academia as a whole, there has likewise been much interest in the importance of play for animals, individuals and society as a whole. Sutton-Smith again writes that, 'some study the body, some study behaviour, some study thinking, some study groups of individuals, some study experience, some study language - and they all use the word play for these quite different things'. This breadth of enquiry and experience of play highlights its pervasive nature. To expand on this point, I can't resist quoting this list of the varieties of play studies put together by Sutton-Smith, in which he details for what reasons play is studied in a multitude of different academic fields:

'Biologists, psychologists, educators, and sociologists ... focus on how play is adaptive or contributes to growth, development and socialization. Communication theorists tell us that play is a form of metacommunication far preceding language in evolution because it is also found in animals. Sociologists say that play is an imperial social system that is typicallly manipulated by those with power for their own benefit. Mathematicians focus on war games and games of chance ... because of the data they supply about strategy and probability. ... Anthropologists pursue the relationships between ritual and play ... in customs and festivals. ... Art and literature ... focus on play as a spur to creativity. In psychiatry, play offers a way to diagnose and provide therapy. And in the leisure sciences, play is about qualities of personal experience, ... fun, relaxation, escape, and so on.'

This list expresses just how important play can be to human interaction and endeavor, and supports a strong argument for play's inherent *value* and even *necessity* in many areas of human experience. It is clear that play is not just what children do to amuse themselves, it is something that helps an individual of whatever age, to learn, to develop, to perform well and to interact and socialise with others.

But why is there this feeling that play is somehow wasting time? Sutton-Smith suggests that ''play is seen largely as what children do but not what adults do; ... children play but adults recreate'. One of the reasons for this attitude, in Western cultures at any rate, is that play is often associated with childhood, and hence is seen as *immature*. Hence this 'work ethic' view might concede that play is important for children's growth, but for adults sees play as distracting and inefficient, and dismisses play as a luxury which working adults have little time for. Play certainly isn't fit for contributing to 'adult' tasks such as work, or even higher education. However this work ethic standpoint, which in Kane's words, '[pigeonholes] play as 'trivial', 'frivolous', 'silly'', sells the potential of play somewhat short. Sutton-Smith asks the question, 'how can it be that such ecstatic adult play experiences, which preoccupy so much emotional time, are only diversions?'.

Kane, in 'The Play Ethic: A manifesto for a different way of living', recalls an edition July/August 1999 edition of Psychology Today, entitled 'The Power of Play'. This reputable publication presents research highlighting just how beneficial play can be. 'Play makes you live longer... select a trustworthy mate... improves memory... [and] makes [you] happier.' Contrast this with the many stress-related problems that have been linked with over-working. The article also quotes Sutton-Smith as saying, 'The opposite of play isn't work. It's depression'. This encapsulates the fallacy that play is somehow opposed to and irreconcilable with work. In many cases, and I experienced this doing the Google Earth task last week, play can actually *improve* the quality and standard of work, by helping to engage the workers.

It's lunacy to deny that play doesn't have a significant role in adult life. But for it to become accepted as a valid tool for work and learning, it's diversity of application must be acknowledged and expressed. Yes, there are times when play connotes being infantile and foolish, but there are also times when play encourages creativity and growth, personal engagement, and improved collaboration. It should be emphasised that there *are* ways of experiencing play in thoroughly *mature* and effectual ways, and that our work and learning will be better for it.

Bonus level - Reflections on Google Earth design task

2007-02-10T07:42:00.000-08:00

It was a compelling task last week. Not only did I [1] get to grips with Google Earth (GE), a piece of software with enormous potential, but got an insight into [2] the process involved in conceiving of and designing games, [3] working in groups online, and by playing others' and reflecting on my own team's, [4] what makes an enjoyable game with good learning potential. I'll look briefly at each point in turn.

[1] Google Earth has the potential for putting a physical location to the until-now invisible nature of web networking. The software helps the user to spatially locate anywhere in the world, mostly to a reasonable degree of image quality. The potential for different layers is huge: a student studying the pyramids of Egypt is able to zoom into them for themselves, with an array of wikipedia info and picture-quality photos at hand; those interested in a city or important site are able to do tours with accompanying videos; a historical study of troop movements in WW2 can map where the fronts lay; the possibilities for teaching are enormous. In much the same way that wikipedia has rendered the printed encyclopedia obsolete, so to will GE resign the printed atlas to the shelves of charity shops.

[2] In retrospect it's easier to categorise the kind of game that we came up with as a team. Essentially it was a lexical puzzle, which could only be completed once. For people who like crosswords, this game would appeal but the final aim of working out how many airmiles were involved in a single shopping basket may have been tedious for some. The idea of having a piece of a puzzle in SL was a great one, as it tied the player into finding a solution for the questions by giving them a final incentive in doing so. Ultimately, it was a puzzle rather than a game - and having created a puzzle, with reasonable success I'm bound to add - I'm now inspired to design a game that a player *would* want to play again.

[3] It was an interesting challenge for decision-making and action: how best could a group of people literally spread across the (google) earth communicate to design and create a game. We started with the discussion board in WebCT, but I found that ideas were lost in threads where other concerns and chat were also going on. The setting up a group wiki (Writeboard is an excellent option) was useful in the consolidation of ideas and themes. After initial reluctance to using/editing/deleting others' inputs, the wiki helped a great deal in structuring the ideas and themes. MSN worked well to reach a group decision on the theme and actions (in spite of having teething problems for some with the software not doing what it should do - Microsoft grrr...) and also noticed that it helped to have a kind of facilitator who kept the focus of the meeting. Everyone was assigned tasks which were swiftly completed, and aside from the odd fine-tuning, that was task done. All without a single telephone call!

[4] Linking to my thoughts in section 2, I'm beginning to think that a really well-designed game is one that players can play again and again and not tire of. Easier said than done of course! Most computer games it seems will involve a series of 'levels' in which the challenge gets progressively harder, faster and/or more complex. Though they usually ultimately have an end point. Take Mario 64 or Doom for instance - the player can *complete* the game. This can act as incentive to pursue the end goal, but can be a disincentive once the game has been completed. However, most games will include variables, such as beginner/expert levels, that will keep the player interested. This linear design is different to a game such as chess or monopoly, where there are winners and losers, and there are sufficient variables to ensure that no two games are the same. Perhaps because so many videogames (VGs) are designed for one player, that this linearity is necessary. Instead of pitting themselves against the wits of another player, the single player is challenged by the VDU, or the complexity of the task.

Team 1 produced 2 very good games, but each somewhat lacking what the other had. The Environment Game was very slick and well produced, but somehow lacked gameplay, that elusive quality that makes us *want* to play. Team 1's 'bonus' game was immediately engaging, but lacked the educational content of the first. If these could be combined in some way, then the game is on to a winner.

As a final point about the task, I believe this format, where teams develop games and give them to other members of the group, is an extremely powerful teaching method. The game designers must get to grips with the subject matter, but in an exploratory and experimental rather than prescribed way; the group members must then collaborate, encouraging communication and thinking skills; there is then scope for imagination, creativity and *playfulness* in design; the games are then shared, with the students teaching others through the playing of their games [these can then be published for others too]. This method surely reaches the pinnacle of pedagogy, since the teacher is able to step back and let the students teach themselves and they enjoy themselves too

Level 4 - What makes a good game?

2007-02-07T07:38:00.000-08:00

Whether it's taking part or just watching, there can be something encapsulating and engaging about a good game. But what makes a good game so appealing? While much of course depends on a person's subjective taste, it is worth considering what makes a game enjoyable, absorbing and rewarding.

First, what exactly is a game?. The concept of a game is notoriously difficult to define. In Philosophical Investigations, Ludvig Wittgenstein demonstrated that 'the elements of games, such as play, rules, and competition, all fail to adequately define what games are' [quoted from wikipedia]. Games and play vary so much that it is difficult to use a catch-all definition. Newman suggest that a common characteristic of games is that there is a rule-system that players must abide by. Without a rule system of sorts, a game ceases to be a game, and constitutes merely playing. Newman cites Callois (2001) and his distinction between paidea and ludus, referring to activities with simple and complex rules respectively. Simple play, say with a Frisbee, lacks the more complex rule systems of games such as rugby, or monopoly. However, there is a grey area between the two distinctions, as there in no real definite line when play becomes a game, and ceases to be just play. In addition, there are times when play is an inherent part of games, and some might argue that while games aren't always involved in play, play is an integral part of all games.

In his book Home Ludens, Johan Huizinga discusses the importance of play in culture society and learning. He proposes that play helps us to form a relationship with the object or person we are playing with. For example, infants are said to be 'playing' with something, when they are experimenting with the object's nature, getting to grips with what it can and cannot do. As Paul Feyerabend writes in his book Conquest of Abundance (1999) (Quoted by Kane) '[Science] is a bricolage of experimentation ... initial playful activity is an essential prerequisite for the final act of understanding'. In addition, Kane writes (in Chapter 2, The Play Ethic): 'The moment of play is identified as a generator of originality, energy and new development'. Hence play is an important and indeed necessary experience for infant and children's learning. Why not for adults too? The inclusion of play and playability engages the player, contibuting significant motivational allure, adding to much of the *appeal* of a game.

Aside from play, what else makes a good game? Competition is often a feature of games, and can be said to add a dimension of thrill to a game. Callois categorises the competition element of a game as *agon*, recognising this as a feature of many rule-based games. The agon element certainly motivates players. Competitiveness has been recognised as a biological trait, linked to the urge for survival, and is likewise linked to winning, a primary motivation for many game players. Thus a game may be more appealing to a player if there is a good chance s/he might win. However if it is too easy, this may prove to make the game seem pointless, and be de-motivating. [In contrast, some players may find that *collaboration* constitutes a more important aspect of appeal. The communication and relationship building that comes from joint effort may for some players be a real attraction.] Callois writes in his book 'Man, Play and Games', that 'the practice of agon presupposes sustained attention, appropriate training, assiduous application, and the desire to win. It implies discipline and perseverance.' These requirements for agon-based games are not only likely to increase motivation, but they are all learnings that are likely to be transferable in other fields, such as work, recreation, and even studying

However, neither competition and collaboration are entirely necessary for a game's appeal. Take Solitaire for example; there is neither competition, nor collaboration, but there *is* a challenge. And this aspect of challenge goes right to the heart of gaming of any sort. A game is not a game unless the proponent(s) is forced to resolve some problem posed within a certain framework of rules. Whether it's how best to stick a ball in a net when 11 people are trying to stop you, ot how best to invest your money into houses and hotels so others lose their money, games will always involve an element of problem-solving within a framework of rules.

And it's this concept of *challenge* that best answers the question what makes a good game? Newman describes Jessen's experiment (1995) who observed children playing Transport Tycoon, finding that 'working out the rules of a videogame constitutes a large part of the fascination and challenge and is a principle motivation for play'. He also cites Rouse (2001), whose identification of why players play games includes challenge and immersion. Although this study focused on videogames, the same could be said for other non-digital games too. People are intrigued by 'novel and exciting situations to experience' and are stimulated by the 'refinement of performance through replay and practice'. Newman refers to Danesi (2002) with respect to puzzle games, stating 'part of the appeal of puzzle games arises from the disruption of order' and the 'reinstating of the equilibrium state' and this resolution of a problem is what Rouse (2001) and Crawford (1984) 'identify as central motivations for play'. When we noticeably improve at something or figure out how best to do something it feels good. The satisfaction of working something out can be a strong motivator. If the challenge is too easy however, this feeling of accomplishment diminishes - likewise, too hard and a player may become quickly de-motivated. As Bernie de Koven writes, 'when the challenge is greater than our abilities, we become anxious and potentially dead. When the challenge is significantly less than that of which we are worthy, we become bored, and potentially dead'. So part of what makes a good game is a challenge that is tough enough to require improvement of skills/knowledge, but not *too* tough.

Rouse (2001) also mentions 'primacy' as a motivation for game-players, where the player gets completely involved in their actions. This aspect of immersement is key to a good game. And this primacy can also extend to avid observers of games, not just the players themselves, as diehard fans and followers of sports teams will confirm. (The dying seconds of a close match will feel like hours while at other times the observer may be completely 'lost' in the game.) This primacy state to some extent mirrors Csikszentmihalyi's 'flow state'. David Farmer quotes how it feels to be in the 'flow' state:

[1] Completely involved, focused, concentrating - with this either due to innate curiosity or as the result of training
[2] Sense of ecstasy - of being outside everyday reality
[3] Great inner clarity - knowing what needs to be done and how well it is going
[4] Knowing the activity is doable - that the skills are adequate, and neither anxious or bored
[5] Sense of serenity - no worries about self, feeling of growing beyond the boundaries of ego - afterwards feeling of transcending ego in ways not thought possible
[6] Timeliness - thoroughly focused on present, don't notice time passing
[7] Intrinsic motivation - whatever produces "flow" becomes its own reward

As Farley (2000) writes (quoted by Newman), 'good gameplay ... makes you forget yourself and the passage of time, not operating consciously but going with the flow'. Any game which is designed well enough to encourage this state in its players is likely to hold great appeal, and as point [7] mentions, becomes an important feature of its attaction.

So there may be many factors that combine to make a good game; some of these will depend on the players interaction with each other, some will depend on the game design and how the particular game develops. For educators, it is worth considering these factors when designing games for teaching purposes. Combining the play aspect with a challenge that is absorbing and engaging is a challenge in itself, but one which may ultimately prove very rewarding for all the players and designers alike.

Level 4 - Is playing video games really time well spent?

2007-01-28T13:32:00.000-08:00

I must admit to feeling slightly guilty for playing video games (VGs) after my teens. As a kid I didn't care, but as I got older and responsibilities started to pop up here and there, the pleasure of spending an afternoon plugged into Mario World or Fifa 2004 became a luxury rather than a pastime. VGs were a kind of junk food that I'd indulge in now and then, but was slightly wary of lest I got too sucked in. Where did this guilt come from? It came mostly from knowing that there were more important things that needed to be done, but also from the general social perception that VGs are a *waste of time*. But have I been right in feeling guilt? Should I have in fact been putting off the so-called important stuff to practice my swing in Tiger Woods golf, or spending my afternoon as Lara Croft? Does playing VGs actually make me smarter?

Greenfield suggests several ways in which playing VGs can develop cognitive and physical functioning, though of course, the skills developed will depend on the game being played. For many action games, the obvious gain will be in sensorimotor skills. With time, finger-eye co-ordination becomes fast and reliable, which even I found after playing PacMan for a while. Greenfield suggest that these skills are important for many occupations and cites Piaget's theory that 'they are the foundation for later stages of development'. However, I somehow feel that this may be over-emphasising the importance of being nimble-fingered enough to say, avoid capture by a hungry ghost, but I take her point that speed of thinking and execution *are* developed to an extent.

The question of transferability of *physical* skills undoubtedly arises here, and I still find it questionable whether improving finger and thumb reaction speed really constitutes significant cognitive development and is really of use in many different fields. Unless the task at hand specifically involves pressing buttons at important moments, I find it hard to accept that playing PacMan leads to useful practical skills. As in other VGs, I find any *physical* development from manual keypads extremely limited: playing golf games does not improve your swing, fighting games do not make you a good fighter, skiing games do not make you a good skier etc. However game developments, particularly in arcades, are more and more incorporating physical input beyond finger and thumb action, such as dancing games on pads, drumming games involving drumsticks etc. These developments are moving towards interaction at a physical as well as mental level, which is potentially exciting. The Nintendo Wii has a number of sports games, which go some way to encouraging physical development. Likewise, biofeedback games have been developed, which encourage the player to control their physical responses. The future of gaming looks likely to involve increased physical interaction and consequent physical learning as a result.

Having said all this, in spite of most games being limited to keypad interaction, there is apparently much a player can learn beyond simple sensorimotor skills. As Greenfield mentions, many games will develop complex inductive skills and spatial awareness for their players. While I didn't get as far as noticing the different movements of the ghosts from my own playing of PacMan, I soon developed greater awareness of how to evade capture. And Greenfield rightly mentions that this problem-solving through induction constitutes much of the appeal of the game. This "process of transforming randomness into order through induction" might even be the very crux of enjoyment from learning - the feeling that by learning how things work, we can successfully resolve problems that come our way is inherently pleasant.

Another skill Greenfield mentions that is arguably developed by playing VGs is what she calls 'parallel processing'. I wholeheartedly agree that children of the digital age are noticeably better at processing multiple inputs. This idea links to Prensky's and Oblinger's articles, in which they note that young people nowadays tend towards 'hypertext' thinking, where they are more comfortable with taking in short but multiple sources of information, and as a result are easily bored by lengthy 'serial' processing. In the wider context of learning, this ability for parallel processing is likely to enable 'bigger picture' thinking, or 'systems thinking', where learners are more able to make links across subject fields, leading to more complex understanding. Greenfield cites experimental work recorded in T.M.Kahn's article (1981), 'An analsis of strategic thinking using a computer based games', confirming that "games that require the player to induce the relations among multiple interacting variables are difficult for many people [and] ... bring about important skills such as flexibility and an orientation toward independent achievement". Thus, not only does parallel thinking lead to complex cognition, it also apparently encourages individual ambition.

So overall, the playing of even simple games *can* and does lead to cognitive development. I haven't even touched on content here, but this is in my view an area where games can really educate. A player of Civilisation cannot help but be informed of names and occupations involved in say, the Roman conquest, or the American war of indepence. Likewise a player of the game Food Force cannot help but absorb details of the World Food Program and the challenges it faces. Even playing a computer golf game helps to develop understanding of factors that come into playing a good round (though unfortunately my handicap hasn't yet borne the fruit of my computer game labours!). So when educational content is combined with gameplay that encourages cognitive development, then the educational impact of games is potentially very powerful. And whilst PacMan may not be an example of such a combination, even the learning to be gained from its relative simplicity points to the enormous potential that well-conceived and constructed learning games might hold.

Level 3 - We can't ignore the prevalence of digital technologies

2007-01-20T13:30:00.000-08:00

Marc Prensky's articles on Digital Natives (DNs) and Digital Immigrants (DIs) raise some important issues, not just in the field of e-learning, but in education in general. If there really is a marked difference between the cognitive processing of children and their teachers as he claims, that 'today's students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach', then it follows that our current education system must be completely overhauled to accommodate this change. If we concede that DNs *do* communicate differently, act differently, think differently and learn differently, then the entire education system must 'go digital' to accommodate these changes. But are these radical changes really necessary?

In the terms of Oblinger's article 'Baby Boomers, Gen-Xers and Millenials', I would class myself as being a Gen-Xer, being really the first generation to have computers in schools and games consoles at home. This puts me in a good position to notice the difference between my parents' generation, the Baby Boomers, and the younger Millenials. The world of the Millenials, in terms of their immersion in digital technologies, compared to my own and especially the Boomer's childhood is striking: a single mobile phone can nowadays play music, games and videos, can take pictures and make films, can download information about latest news or sports events, can store data including contact details and diaries, can work as a GPS locator to help find directions, can be used as a calculator, can send SMS and get this... can even and phone someone anywhere in the world. Most kids nowadays will have all these functions at their fingertips, whereas a few generations ago, to have all these functions you would need a whole host of equipment, and pay a considerable amount for it. And this is just the phones - when you take into account the prevalence of cable TV, games consoles, internet and PCs, it is clear that for a young person nowadays, *digital is everywhere*. And yet mainstream education seems to almost ignore this reality completely.

The distinction between DNs and DIs is extremely useful in offering a explanation of these different paradigms, and why there might be tension between them. DNs think traditional teaching methods are boring and old-hat compared to the glut of cutting edge digital entertainment that they're used to; on the other hand DI teachers do not appreciate the value of digital material out there and accuse the young of being unco-operative or simply stupid when they get quickly tired of 'chalk-and-talk' teaching practices. On the whole, DI teachers make no effort to, or are simply unable to adapt teaching practices to get anywhere close to the kind of digital environment that DNs are used to. Having spent the last two years working in secondary schools myself, I have heard many staffroom conversations centred around how 'kids of today are different', 'they were never this bad!'; and while it might be argued that teachers have always complained that 'kids weren't like this in my day', even teachers who have taught for generations will maintain that the current generation is *significantly* different. This disparity is leading to a number of problems in education: teachers are becoming demoralised, students are disengaged and worst of all, an entire generation is being ill-prepared for their post-school lives.

Perhaps the hardest lesson is that it is up to the DIs, not the DNs, to change. The DNs are growing up into a world where digital technologies will become more prevalent, becoming the dominant paradigm. To embrace this development, not only must current teaching practices change, but the teachers themselves must re-learn much of what they've been taught. This is likely to be a painful task. My own rather pessimistic view is that apart from a few early adopters, the education system will not fully 'go digital', until the current generation of DNs become teachers themselves. [Research into scientific paradigm changes by Thomas Kuhn ['The structure of scientific revolutions], points almost unanimously to the likelihood that proponents of an old paradigm will rarely change to embrace the new, but will challenge it to the end. A good example was Einstein, who was lampooned by Newtonians when he introduced his theories of relativity, then went on to lambast Nils Bohr and others who presented quantum mechanics.] Prensky's appeal that we need to 'invent Digital Native methodologies for all subjects, at all levels, using our students to guide us' is absolutely necessary if we are to do our students justice, but I fear unlikely to become a mainstream reality until DNs are designing and implementing the courses themselves.

Level 2 - Thoughts on Kirriemuir's Article: can education ever be fun?

2007-01-16T13:27:00.000-08:00

It's a sobering message that Kirriemuir puts forward in his article 'Video Gaming, Education and Digital Learning Technologies'. There is apparently much evidence to indicate that the gaming industry is going from strength to strength, but 'educational' games are not benefitting from this popularity of video games in general. Why is this, and what should educational games change to address this problem?

Kirriemuir writes that 'when gaming-oriented entertainment and learning or educational material are combined the result has often been disappointing; the educational value is debatable or irrelevant, and the gaming and engagement qualities compare poorly to those of pure games.' This is a real concern for those that herald game-based learning as something significantly useful for educators, since if the games themselves aren't engaging, then no one will play them for any length of time, and are thus unlikely to learn much from it.

My own experience of gaming reflects this trend - I have found that educational games are often caught in a no-man's land, where they are not quite fun enough to be entertainment, and not quite substantial enough to offer serious learning potential. Kirriemuir goes some way to explain why this is, writing that 'several commentators have noted that frequently such software seems to contain gaming or entertainment components designed by a teacher, and learning components designed by a games designer, whereas it should be the other way around.' It seems that on the whole, games have been developed to be either *fun* or *educational*, and rarely do both.

However, there are some recently developed games that have a high-budget look and feel, while integrating valuable learning outcomes. One of the leading websites to provide curriculum-relevant content in an interactive form is the BBC's latest educational offering, BBC Jam. This website contains audio and video files embedded in to well-designed and animated backgrounds, as well as software tools and games. The learning value of the video files and assessment questions is unquestionable, but the games, while subject related, tend to offer simply a harmless distraction. On their own, the games would hardly constitute deep learning, but as an addition and incentive, they certainly add some fun to the site as a whole. If the games attract young learners, then some would argue that's enough. But should the role of games in education be simply light relief from more 'heavy weight' content?

One game that goes some way to combining playability *and* content is Food Force, a game sponsored by the UN for the World Food Program. Food Force is said to have over 2 million players, and after playing the game, it is easy to see why it is so popular - it is obviously high budget, well-scripted, and well thought out, but most of all, it is very engaging. The player is given a good insight into the work of the WFP through video/animations, and the game itself encourages thought into how best carry out WFP's objectives. It is a clear example of how, if money and thought as well as playability is factored game construction, then a game can be fun *and* informative, and ultimately be of greater educational value than simply the raw information on its own.

So this is the challenge for 'learning games' if they are to gain popularity, to be not only educational but also engaging and fun. In addition, if they are to really gain a market hold, Kirriemuir suggests 'they should be implemented on consoles with which learners are familiar, rigorously tested, independently evaluated, and widely publicized.' This step may be some time coming, partly due to a catch-22 where developers are unwilling to invest unless there is a market for it, but there'll be little market until the games get better. However, with greater collaboration between teachers and game designers, it is likely that learning games will gain greater appeal. So long as the key ingredient to a game is retained - it should actually be enjoyable and fun to play!

Level 1 - Gaming life so far

2007-01-12T13:16:00.000-08:00

Since starting this course, and reflecting on the role that games have played in my life thus far, it has struck my just how integral games and play have been throughout my life.

As a child, I would spend hours absorbed in fantasy roleplay scenarios playing Game Workshops games, and designing my own versions, which unfortunately would rarely get played. From Jones, G. (2002). "Killing monsters: Why children need fantasy, super heroes, and make-believe violence", it seems that roleplay games can actually play a useful, even necessary part in development. The author concludes that children actually need fantasy, and even make believe violence in order to develop social skills and resilience.

Some of my fondest memories of my grandparents are of playing card games such as Bridge and Gin Rummy, or even Mah Jong. My greatest memory of my grand-father was playing a hand of Gin Rummy, and within 3 turns, he could tell me almost exactly what I had in my hand - this was perhaps some introduction into how games can develop memory and logical reasoning to an (at the time) incredible extent.

My computer 'gaming' career started with Snoopy Tennis on those little handheld nintendo consoles - the object was to keep multiple balls going back and forth to Snoopy, an absorbing task requiring supreme dexterity. This led on to mild addictions with Bomber Jack and Chuckie Egg on the ZX spectrum and commodore, which were platform games requiring both dexterity and problem-solving. This was a time when the BBC micro was being introduced at schools, where computer-based learning tools were available, and I could play games such as Elite, Repton and very basic text-based fantasies. Elite, I have since discoved was one of the first games to include 3D wire-framing and the concept of trading to improve your situation (Elite). Perhaps hundreds of would-be entrepreneurs have developed from Elite's somewhat immoral gameplay of trading slaves and narcotics for better guns and bombs! The NES was the only TV-connected console I've ever owned, which was one of the first cartridge based systems. Games like Duck hunt involved good hand eye co-ordination, and Super Mario and early Zelda required problem-solving, spatial awareness and sheer tenacity. Next came the game boy with Tetris, a classic requiring spatial awareness, dexterity and speed. Finally, I played more complex games on the Playstation, SuperNintendo and Xbox, and am liking the idea of being able to study these without guilt.

As for now I'm liking strategy games, puzzles and brain-teasers. Right now, I'm into Civilisation IV, which I'm finding provides some useful historical info (tho I'm not sure how accurate it is) as well as good insights into strategic thinking and town-planning.

In terms of aims for the course, I'm particularly interested in how computer games can be used alongside f2f group teaching/training. I must admit to having reservations about a world where people and especially children spend more time in front of screens, instead of learning directly from each other f2f. However, from my own and others' experience, I believe that game technology can be integrated within a traditional 'classroom' setting with exciting results.

I am also interested in the psychology of gaming, in particular performance psychology and the 'flow state', and how educational games can really engage learners.

Let the games commence...

What I've e-learnt this semester...

2006-12-10T22:51:00.000-08:00

After reviewing my initial hopes for the course, I can honestly say that it has lived up to (and surpassed) my expectations. With a tendency to enjoy ticking things off on 'to-do' lists, I can't resist looking back at each expectation in turn: 

 > [1] Learn about technologies that will enrich my current work environement, with a mind to creating a better communication link between long distance trainers, and an online method for course development < *Now have a broad understanding and practical experience of Web 2.0 developments and functions which will hopefully help to enrich communication between training staff. This will be explored more in assisgment. 

 > [2] Learn about technologies that can be used in a class room, to aid learning of children and/or adults < *Now have a better understanding of the current digital divide, and a few ideas about how technologies might be integrated with mainstream teaching. Am now stronger in my belief that learning instituations must attempt to teach and engage younger pupils with technology and media that they are used to, but also that there *are* limitations and even dangers of persistent technological immersement which must also be brought into consideration. 

 > [3] Learn about the psychological and social impacts of sustained virtual networking < *This we have touched on in various discussions at the beginning and end of the semester. Particularly interesting and relevant as use of social networking sites has mushroomed even since the start of term. Look fwd to exploring this topic further later on in the course.  

 > [4] Learn how games can assist learning < * Just really got a tast of this with the two weeks spent on Second Life and Labyrinth. Particularly inspired by SL (now that I can run it on my computer), tho filled with equal concern at how sustained use might affect individuals and society as a whole. Once again really looking fwd to exploring this topic further doing GBL next semester.  

 > [5] And finally, the bigger picture - how are we all likely to be affected by online technologies in future societies.  * Feel I have a much greater appreciation for how online technologies are likely to play a growing role in social interaction, business, shopping, entertainment, as well as of course, education. After initially being a vast library of information, the internet is beginning to develop layers and functions which are already changing the way we relate to each other (15% of couples formed last year met over the internet) and the way we live in general. While PCs were once the primary means of accessing the Internet, we're now seeing Internet-enabled devices such as PDAs and cell phones that send and receive e-mail and access the Web. Soon, everything from your car to your refrigerator will be connected to the global network, communicating with each other wirelessly. Welcome to a brave, new world. 

 So as for prior concerns: > I hope that above all that course will be enjoyable and stimulating - tho judging by my recent excitement at setting up and involving myself with the course so far, enjoyment seems inevitable (ask me again when first assignment due!). < * The assignment IS now on it's way and I'm still smiling, even relishing the challenge it poses. Have thoroughly enjoyed the semester, and found the content varied, stimulating, and well managed and presented (not trying to sway the mark here, honest!) 

 Until next term...

Reflections on blogging

2006-12-09T22:43:00.000-08:00

As it's coming to the end of this semester, i thought it might be relevant to finish off with thoughts on blogs. It's testament to this format's appeal that it has taken off so much in the past few years to the point that politicians, radio DJs etc are all using them. But whether they are just a passing fad or not still remains to be seen. 

 Personally, I have found the experience of creating a blog very rewarding (tho to be fair it's more like a 'log' without the 'web'). It provides a simple and quick facility for compiling thoughts and research, from the pithy to the profound. And reading back through the entries, it automatically assumes a narrative, diary-like structure which adds up to create a fairly substantial body of work. Compared to researching and writing long essays (which I'm sure have their place in learning also), it is a significantly easier way to present learning. In addition, I feel there is greater scope than traditional academic writing to convey the authors personal character. Perhaps it is the diary-like quality, but it allows the writer to be slightly more informal and reflective (whether this is a good thing remains to be argued). 

 In terms of educational use, blogs are being put to many different uses, from sharing good practice between educators, to storing information and developing research. There is also the potential for using blogs to work collaboratively with colleagues and as a way of encouraging and facilitating debate. In a separate Guardian article the reporter writes that, "academic researchers are drawn to blogs because they're useful knowledge management tools. [One student] says that her site quickly became a kind of "mind gym", a place to test out and develop ideas and to hone her prose style. The social networking side of blogging became very important here, she says. Her blog helped her build links and share ideas with researchers in the area at other universities." While our own blog is not 'live' (which may come as a relief to some), the 'open' nature of published weblogs is likely to lead to greater dissemination of knowledge, and a more far-reaching opportunity for discussion, than might occur if academic output was confined to dusty journals. 

 As a suggestion for future courses, a search function on our blogs would be very useful. As one blogger wrote in the above article, "the blog has helped her focus her research more effectively... . Its search functions let her find ideas quickly". This would be useful, especially when it comes to assignment writing where the user needs to refer back to relevant posts. 

 In terms of future adaptations and uses for blogs, it seems that video blogging is beginning to take off. In yet another Guardian article, one media studies teacher relates his experience with his students, saying "his students were highly motivated to videoblog compared with previous years when they were asked to produce a more traditional presentation: "This time they all did the work and threw themselves into the task with gusto. It was also more enjoyable to teach, and more focused."" Another new technology coming out which may take off is in the form of logged audio discussions. Chinswing allows users to record audio snippets about certain subjects. Whether this format catches on or not again remains to be seen. 

 From the apparent success of projects using blogs to encourage learning, it seems likely that they play an ever-growing part in education. And from my own experience with blogs this term, I will welcome their ongoing use.

Del.icio.us revisited

2006-12-08T22:41:00.000-08:00

Never really appreciated the true scope of this apparently simple site. Just beginning to understand just how powerful it can be - the more you use it, the better it gets. Finding it especially useful for sourcing information from other peoples tag 'clouds'. Especially if they are experienced in their field, the observer has an instant access to highly searchable store of information that has inspired that person. It potentially presents a quality of searchabiliity greater than regular online search engines as it adds a personal dimension - instead of a programme trawling data for keywords and links, delicious allows the user to search for links based on what experienced and knowledgeable people prefer. This is proving to be very useful.

Diminishing the digital divide - a need to bridge the generation gap?

2006-12-06T22:11:00.000-08:00

Once again, fascinating issues raised by the core articles this week. Both highlight a significant difference in the generations, characterised by familiarity with computers, the internet and technology (or lack of it). This raises important issues for educators at ALL levels, in particular how these technologies can be put to best use in order to engage students without creating a 'digital dependence' where human relationships and overall learning might suffer.

 Oblinger draws up 3 general but useful distinctions between generations and their understanding and comfort with ICTs (this includes internet use): Boomers, the 40+ age group, might be classed as 'digital migrants', or those who did not grow up surrounded by computers and associated technology, but had to learn about them at a later stage; Gen-Xers (which I fall into) who were the first generation to grow up with (albeit rudimentary) computers and who are the first 'digital natives'; and Millenials, or 'digital natives 2.0' who were born after 1982, and who are completely au fait with computers, internet and associated linking gadgets such as mobile phones, iPods etc. Millenials have also been classed as Generation-C - where C stands for Content - meaning that for this generation, creation of 'consumer generated content plays a significant role in their social life, generating streams of new text, images, audio and video on an ongoing basis. These characterisations are extremely useful for educators of the older generation who wish to better understand and inform the younger generations, and to an extent vice versa.

 What is perhaps most interesting for teachers at all levels is that Millenials exhibit distinct learning styles, as Clare Raines suggests in 'Managing Millenials'. Their learning preferences embrace "teamwork, technology, structure, entertainment & excitement [and] experiential activities". These preferences may be said to differ significantly to those of the Boomer generation when they were at school. And this is the challenge faced by the Boomer generation, who are currently in management positions in schools, colleges and universities: how can they tailor way that teaching and learning is presented to engage the students of the tech-generations? If they do not, there is a danger of disenfranchising large numbers of young people, perhaps even turning them off from education completely.

 Teachers at all levels must therefore increasingly adopt methods that appeal to what might be termed the "information-age mind-set." As Oblinger writes, 'the attitudes - and aptitudes - of students who have grown up with technology appear to be differ from those of students who rarely use technology." She cites Jason Frand, who lists ten key attributes of this emerging mind-set: "[1] Computers aren't technology; [2] Internet is better than TV; [3] Reality is no longer real (re: potential inaccuracies of digital content); [4] Doing is more important than knowing; [5] Learning more closely resembles Nintendo than logic; [6] Multi-tasking is a way of life; [7] Typing is preferred to handwriting; [8] Staying connected is essential; [9] Zero tolerance of delays; and [10] Consumer and creator are blurring." These all combine to highlight fairly significant changes in how young people process information.

In the other core article, Monereo highlights this cognitive change. "Just as steps from oral culture to written culture and then from writing into printing had clear repercussions for forms of learning and thinking, the transition from the printed culture to this new digital culture will have diverse consequences for our cognition". In particular, point [4] above marks a giant step, where knowledge accumulation needs no longer be a principle goal of education, as information can be easily accessed and needn't necessarily be stored in an individual's brain. Monereo again, describes this distinction, writing that "technological migrants [Boomers] regard knowledge as something that they possess, something that they carry around with them; technological natives [Gen-X onwards] see it as something that they obtain through a set of applications and instruments. This distinction modifies substantially notions such as intelligence, wisdom and ability." This change also has significant epistemological ramifications.

Once again Monereo raises this issue. "For the older generation there have always been universal truths, both scientific and moral... But for the younger generation, "everything depends"; all truths are relative nd depend on who, when, how, and why they are stated; they are never independent of their utterer or their context." This is a considerable, and I think exciting, philosophical change that teachers must accommodate - teaching that knowledge is absolute will not convince our young learners; they will require to be told of the bigger picture, and then make their own minds up. [See the excellent example, again cited by Oblinger, which provides students with a broad range of documents relating to the civil war, encouraging them to view sources as a multitude of opinions, not facts, and to synthesize a broad range data to form opinions of their own.]

 I also feel, although to a lesser extent than above, point [5] also presents and interesting challenge to teachers - to engage students in ways that complex problem-solving computer games, with high levels of interactivity might. Recognising and accomodating these changes will I think prove to be an important challenge for teachers over the coming years, moving away from linear, textbook-based learning, to classes that, in Oblinger's words, 'give way to simulations, games and collaboration'.

 With respect to my previous posting, in which I suggested that online learning was not well suited to learning environments in which f2f social interaction played a key role in learning outcomes, I'd like to reconsider my position. On the one hand, online and distance education may not be suited for younger learners (say up to 24), but on the other hand, if these internet related functions are playing such a significant role in young peoples lives (as Oblinger et al suggest), teachers should really adapt practices to accommodate these changes and preferences. This might be done in traditional classroom settings, with homework involving internet-based projects. And statistics of web use among young people (at least in USA) would support this: 94% of school age pupils use the internet for school research and 78% believe the internet helps with schoolwork [quoted by Oblinger]. From my own personal experience, having delivered many courses on learning styles and methods with S1 pupils, in a list of differing methods of learning: from reading books, group work, experiments, projects, TV, internet, watchin a teacher, listening to the teacher, looking at pictures, listening to CDs, library, etc., the 3 most popular choices every time are TV, CDs and the Internet. While these obviously form the most common channels for entertainment, and are therefore likely to be regularly used by kids, teachers must recognise these preferences if they are to fully engage students. Linking back to a previous posting, they must understand and make use of the media with which their students are most at home.

 But the concern from the parental generation is that pupils' overall welfare may suffer as a result of, amongst other things, over-immersement in technology. There is much debate on so-called toxic culture, spear-headed by Sue Palmer's book 'Toxic Childhood' which raises cautionary concerns about causes of children's angst and disillusionment. This prompted the signing of a letter from 110 child experts and authors which was sent to the Daily Telegraph (article), detailing how 'a sinister cocktail of junk food, marketing, over-competitive schooling and electronic entertainment is poisoning childhood'. While there are obviously many contributing factors to this apparent malaise amongst the young, over-use of technology is often cited as one of them. Spending a great deal of time in schools, I often see rows of friends playing hand-held computer games or with their mobile phones, instead of interacting in other ways. This over-immersement is surely damaging to their ability to communicate and empathise with others.

 Monereo also devotes a section to his paper on the psychosocial risks of exposing students to ICTs. He cites our old friend Dreyfus's key concerns about epistemological relativism, the limiting of interpersonal skills, and how 'the vulnerability of the self, the need to take precautions, the need to show respect for, and commitment, to others, the responsibility for one's own actions and the ability to distinguish between what is fundamental and requires effort and what is trivial and can be ignored - break down and vanish'. As I have argued in a previous posting, while I share many of Dreyfus's concerns, they present a double-edged sword in that these concerns may also be experienced as benefits to some.

 Monereo also adds other concerns about over-use of ICTs taken from research and reflection in the socio-educational setting, namely: "the curse of excess" [Alfons Cornella] relating to an over saturation of information; 'infoxication', or the 'difficulty... of extablishing credibility... of a certain piece of information; informalisation of education; and what he calls 'educational infomercantilism', where packaged educational courses become a kind of 'data fast food' which is not taken seriously. All of these are valid points, but I feel they shouldn't necessarily warn us away from ICT usage completely, but rather should highlight potential implications of sustained ICT use, and how any negative consequences might be recognised and avoided. [See Adbuster's Media Empowerment Kit as a potential tool for improving children's understanding that information is not always as it seems].

The unavoidable reality is that such technology exists, and is popular among the young. Older generations may gripe and groan, but are also likely to be spending a large amount of time in front of a computer themselves. And it's not as if those who grew up post-war were growing up in an age of enlightenment. There was poverty, hardship and other perhaps more severe concerns for children of that day. [See Catherine Bennett's response to toxic culture concerns]. And there are also arguments that internet and technology use actually *improves* relationships with others. Stats cited by Oblinger show that 60% of college students believe the internet has improved their relationships with classmates, 56% believe it has improved their relationships with professors. Likewise an enormous number of school-age children are well-versed in social-networking sites such as MySpace, Bebo and chat systems such as MSN - this points to a large capacity for communication. Evidence from developing countries also points to mobile phone and internet use helping to bring communities together [see work of Daniel Miller]. 

In conclusion, much of the same priorities arise to those stated in previous postings. As Monereo writes, we must 'explore the relative merits of face-to-face and virtual teaching environments and to determine contexts inwhich one is preferred to the other.' We must work on a pragmatic analysis of opportunities that ICTs and internet use might bring, and weigh these up against some of the potential downsides. We must be prepared to let go of out-dated teaching methods and develop new ones if need be. And we must, in Monereo's words, '[promote] the acquisition of a set of essential skills for surviving [and I might add, *flourishing*] in the Information Society'. Carrying out these suggestions will be vital if we are to engage the learners of tommorrow, while helping to safeguard students' overall psycho-social wellbeing.

Labyrinth - lost in the maze

2006-11-27T22:10:00.000-08:00

For some reason unknown to me, I thoroughly enjoyed the process of designing my maze, even though it took a while to get my head round the creation process - both in terms of content creation and technological process. Some forum discussion centred on difficulties in user creation, and I tend to agree with much that was said in the forum: that the system was not always intuitive, was at times long-winded, and lacked slick presentation. However, I also fully appreciate that it is a work in progress and that there is certainly value in the overall concept, not just for the participant but for the creator.  

 The system reminds me of very early computer games on a BBC Micro at primary school, which was really just a screen version of the fantasy adventure books where you read a page then decide where to go from there. Without disrespect to Labyrinth's creators, I fear the simplicity of the interface may be a turn off to many participants, who are used to considerably richer gaming graphics and 3D modelling. However, this doesn't mean it still can't have a place in education contexts. It does add a greater level of interactivity than just text on paper, and this does something to engage the participant. Particularly if the learning outcome is to test knowledge, I feel there is certainly some value. I may not have yet fully grasped its scope, but feel it is best suited as a sort of self-marking multiple choice questionnaire, for knowledge acquisition or for assessment. 

 An interesting point was raised about how the creation of a Labyrinth 'game' forces the creator to really 'get inside' the topic, and just as when we are urged to teach others about a subject, this tends to encourage deep learning. Having had an exam this week for a different course, it helped me to embed some of the knowledge required for the exam (which didn't actually come up in the exam, sod's law). My concern is that, in its current form, much of the time in creation is spent understanding how to use the software, and executing the building of the game, which might be better spent learning the content in another, perhaps more traditional way. Was certainly fun though...

With or without you: pros and cons of online education [2]

2006-11-27T22:05:00.000-08:00

And this is the value of online education - that knowledge *can* be imparted and shared to the extent that deep learning occurs. If this didn't already already happen, then online learning simply wouldn't exist at all. While it might be said that f2f learning is best in some situations, it is not always necessary, and may even be at times inferior to online forms depending on the context. Below, I hope to convey that while there might be a linear progression from SMS to f2f embodied interaction in terms of how *personal* the communication is, there tends to be a non-linear scale of *value* for each communication media. As Burbules suggests, "The 'virtual' is not the opposite of the 'real' - it is a medial term, between the real and the artificial or imagined." And likewise, the many methods for online communication do not follow an imaginary line between 'real' and 'virtual'; they simply allow differing qualities of communication, each one with its own unique benefits and disadvantages. 

 SMS - Asynchronous Pros: Quick, simple, useful for brief yet important announcements Cons: Limited in scope of information and emotion that can be conveyed 

 Email Pros: Can transmit large amounts of written and image data anywhere in world. Asynchonicity is useful to ensure good quality of message. Cons: Limited in quality of emotion that can be conveyed. Asynchronicity makes it discussion stilted. 

 Discussion board - synchronous messaging Pros: Enables participants to discuss using text in real time. Participants can be located anywhere in world. Cons: Current connection speeds will cause time lag which can make 'conversations' stilted. Text-only display can make multiple-person discussions somewhat difficult to manage. Limited in conveying nuances of emotion through speech. 

 Podcast Pros: Can be listened to at listener's own pace in any location. Good for auditory learners and can be more comfortable than reading large amounts. Reader can bring the subject to life Cons: No immediate feedback possible. Lacks visual cues.  

 Multimedia - Recorded lecture, video presentation, etc. Pros: Can be viewed at any time in any global location to suit viewer's time and lifestyle. Might contain rich combination of information - i.e. online lecture on archaelogy might contain lecturer speaking, images of a particular site, 3D imaging, sound etc.  Cons: Difficult to engage a question and answer discussion unless lecture is streamed live with discussion board capability. Not actual person in front of viewer, just a representation. 

 Avatar Pros: As with discussion board, but 3D environment makes it easier to cope with multiple people. Some emotions possible to convey. Can display rich multimedia content and provide immediate links to documents, podcasts, etc. Cons: Time lag and limitations of typing speed makes discussion slower than f2f. As yet no voice-to-voice communication possible (but this may change). 

 Telephone conference Pros: Voice can convey nuances of emotion and intention. Real time discussion possible. Cons: Difficult to manage with multiple participants, arguably more so than plain-text. Lack of facial cues makes it less rich than f2f. Can be off-putting for some. 

 Video-conferencing Pros: Real-time audio and visual cues make it possible to convey facial expressions and verbal nuances, things often seen to be main limitations of text-based communication. Participants can be located anywhere (in theory). Possible now to include multiple people, and visual stimuli makes conversation more natural. Cons: Current connection speeds make images stilted and can be more a distraction than a benefit - this should improve with time. Not quite a physical 3D presence. 

 Face-to-face Pros: Most 'natural' - participants can perceive full complement of auditory and visual cues as well as sensing physical presence. Discussion in large numbers is manageable. Teaching is highly personal. Cons: Real-time situation may make some uncomfortable. Limited by time and location - participants must be in the same room at the same time. 

 While there may be many more features and media that might be added to this list, it provides a rough summary, and hopefully shows that each method of communication has pros and cons. The ultimate distinction is that f2f communication requires that participants are present in the same place, while all other forms of communication do not. But that doesn't necessarily mean that f2f is best in all situations where people can be together, but if they can't then do then online ed is the next best thing. The argument for non-linearity recognises that f2f *is* best in *some* situations but not necessarily best in *all*, even where same location is possible. 

 In addition to the pros mentioned above, there are many arguments to suggest that at times, online education can be more beneficial than f2f learning. Burbules highlights three practical benefits that online interactions afford: "Some students speak up more under such circumstances; there is more time to reflect on what one is writing or reading ina an online discussion ... ; students are required to be more independently motivated ...". While he recognises these may equally be viewed as drawbacks, depending on the situation and learner, they may prove beneficial.  

 In addition, online education can provide a certain liberation from social and cultural norms and constraints. As Stanford professor Fred Turner writes in *From Counter-Culture to Cyberculture*, online forms of communication can be "decentralised, egalitarian, harmonious and free", where the individual might "finally [be] free to step out outside [the body's] fleshy confines, explore its authentic interests, and find others with whom it might achieve communion". Perhaps a bit excessive, but he hints that with online communication people can be exactly who they want to be without race, age, background, looks, disabilities, etc. coming into play. As Turkle suggests in *Life on Screen* (quoted by Burbules), "the Internet is a zone of enormous creativity and experimentation". People are free to contribute in an environment where comments are taken at face value without common f2f power symbols and structures (such as looks, size, tone of voice, social hierarchies, etc.) in place and effecting outcomes. For some people this might be extremely liberating; and in the context of education, might foster a far more comfortable and effective learning environment. 

 So while Dreyfus argues that with loss of emodiment follows loss of authenticity and meaning, I agree that in some situations this may be the case, especially with younger learners, but that in some situations authenticity can *increase*. For example, users of LinkedIn, a social networking site for business people, report that they are able to form deep relationships very quickly based on detailed information about the other person and text-based communication, without having to go through the rigmarole of location-based meetings. In addition, Dreyfus complains that it is impossible to reach 'mastery level' of understanding when teacher and pupil are in different places. But if he is right, then an online Masters or PhD would be completely impossible. But how can he be right? Many people have successfully completed online programs up to PhD level and they are examined by the same criteria with which non-distance courses are evaluated. He cannot argue that online education is inferior if results prove otherwise. 

 As Burbules once again writes, "claims about which mode of interaction is 'better' must always be tempered by asking, 'better for whom?'". The multitude of modes of interaction cannot be measured in scales of inferiority/superiority per se, but can be valued with respect to the context and learning requirements. While online interaction may not be as 'personal' as f2f speaking, it cannot be said that it is 'not-real', as communication of value certainly takes place. So even though people may not sit within smelling distance of one another during online communication, we as humans are perfectly capable of constructing an imagined reality to cope with any lack of visual and auditory cues, to the extent that we can learn from each other perfectly well, and sometimes better, depending on the needs and situation of the learner.

With or without you: pros and cons of online education [1]

2006-11-25T22:08:00.000-08:00

As Burbules suggests in his arguments, Dreyfus does a good and necessary job dispelling some of the hyperbolic statements which herald online learning as the best thing that's happened to education since the book. Statements like these - such as Perelman's (School's out, 1993), 'we have the technology today to enable virtually anyone who is not severely handcappd to learn anything, at a 'grade A' level, anywhere, anytime.' - do nothing to advance our appreciation of online learning, and if anything can actually damage its popularity. But there is a danger of throwing the virtual baby out with the bathwater. The key issue is this: online communication and distance learning exists; and the key question we must ask ourselves, as Burbules puts it, is '*where* and *how* can these technologies be used to support particular educational purposes, and where can they not be?'. It is this question that I hope to address here. 

 I will first explore the latter part of the question - where shouldn't online systems be used in education? There are immediately obvious situations where online learning is inappropriate and inadequate. For anything which involves kinaesthetic learning, such as sport, surgery or laboratory tasks for example, it is likely to be extremely difficult to learn these motor tasks without guidance from a teacher being present. While people might be able to learn knowledge related to such fields online, the impracticalities of watching a screen while attempting to carry out these tasks makes life difficult for the learner, and is a poor replacement for the real thing. 

 Another area where I feel that online systems are inadequate is when f2f social interaction with other learners is a key feature of educational purpose. For example, in primary and secondary education it is surely vital that students learn how to interact with each other, and to suggest that all children should stay at home and log-in for all lessons would be madness. Advocates of home-learning may beg to differ, as might pupils who are being bullied or who are uncomfortable in the school environment, in which case online learning may provide a suitable alternative some of the time. But on the whole it is generally accepted that children ought to be taught in groups, as this helps foster the ability to form healthy social relationships. 

 This raises the question as to whether this argument follows for undergraduate and FE, where the transferrable skills that students gain from this physical learning community might be as important as any knowledge gained. I asked a member of the LEA of the Western Isles of Scotland whether e-learning might be valuable for isolated communities such as his, and he swiftly replied that for the island's young people, it was vital that they left the islands to go to college/uni to meet others and see the world; for older people this was not so necessary. It seems that even at undergrad level, except in exceptional circumstances where it might be impossible, it is important that students come together physically, as forming relationships and learning to live among other people forms an integral part of the overall learning experience. [This is not to say that some elements of the undergrad course might be done online - see below - but simply that it should not compromise the value of students coming together to socialise and learn vital life skills.]  

 So what does that leave us: postgraduate learning, adult education and business training. Within these areas, it can be taken for granted that learners do not require the secondary social benefits that group education can have. In these situations, there may be times when online teaching is inferior to f2f, but there will also be many times when benefits far outweigh any negatives.

Second Life and the Avatar Generation

2006-11-18T22:03:00.000-08:00

From a personal point of view I find the topics of Second Life, virtual worlds and avatars one of the most fascinating that we have touched on so far in this course - yet I have remained completely tongue-tied until now. In all honesty, I've been feeling that it's an area so large in scope that I have really just not known where to start. There are many features that interest me about Second Life, which probably require an entire semester to cover (see next term) but hopefully I can at least lay down a few ideas about why I think SL is such a valuable, exciting and perhaps dangerous medium, not just for educators, but also for anyone who communicates with others online. [Please bear in mind this is after only actually being properly 'in-world' once - the rest of my understanding comes from the SL website and viewing video footage - somewhat frustratingly. A new computer has been ordered!] 

 My initial impression of in-world 'talk' is that there is undoubtedly a significant shift in dynamics when three dimensions are involved, as opposed to a simple SMS system. A 'person' can move around, approach people, fly, and visit things much like we do with our physical bodies. This is a quantum leap from a simple text discussion, like we experienced in the early weeks of this course, and adds a far more intuitive (tho by no means perfect) dimension to communication. Studies have shown that a significant amount of f2f communication is non-verbal, ie we are very sensitive to body language, and will form assumptions, both consciously and unconsciously, by interpreting how other people occupy physical space. While communication in SL is not nearly as complex as in 'first life' (FL), and text is still the norm, it does appear to be somewhat richer than say email, SMS or other text-based networking sites. Avatars can make fairly complex gestures and actions which add a physical context to any written words - like taking the 'smileys' a great leap forward. Avatars can also make basic sounds, and as audio capabilities increase to the point that people are able to chat via microphones, the depth of communication is likely to increase (though I am not entirely sure how managable it might be having a number of people speaking at the same time). However, as it stands now, having a 3D virtual space to occupy appears to make communication easier and more engaging than most other online means. [I would be interested to know whether people find it more engaging using SL than live video link-up?] 

 My next impression is that SL and other virtual worlds invite a whole host of interesting questions in terms of psychology of users, the economics and sociology of the virtual society and the anthropology of virtual cultures. Do these worlds simply offer mindless escapism, or can it be a mentally and emotionally rewarding experience? How is identity constructed? Is there a point where becoming imersed in a virtual world becomes psychologically and socially unsettling for people? And can it lead to deeper self-knowledge and learning? These questions may take another semester to answer, but as a starting point, it might be worth considering why these virtual worlds can be so instinctively appealing to many users. Why is this so? 

 Taylor provides some interesting case studies on this subject, writing that 'some users have even come to identify their avatar as "more them" than their corporeal body'. This I find slightly unsettling, though as one avid SL fan blogged, 'our corporeal body is merely an avatar too. We are simply a vessel of meat and water that carries our tenuous consciousness from place to place'. It seems that existence as an avatar certainly enables people to express themselves, perhaps even in ways they cannot with their corporeal body. As Meg put it, one of Taylors subjects, "I usually change my av [avatar] to suit my moods, or to experiment with others' reactions to different appearances, or to see how different looks affect my own action s and comfort levels". Another subject wrote that her avatar 'absolves (herself) of some of the responsibilitiy of "acting human"'. Many users claim such similar experiences of liberation. One even goes so far as to say, ' "I see being an avatar as sort of a long-term self-exploration and even self-reconfiguration" '. It seems that in spite of limitations of movement, actions and auditory speech, people find that virtual world life offers significant freedom of expression. 

 Another interesting feature is that life as an avatar can be particularly helpful for people who can struggle to communicate and socialise effectively in f2f settings. There was an interesting study done in Nottingham with people with ASDs (Autism Spectrum Disorders), who found it easier to cope with communication in a virtual avatar-based world, for the following reasons: 

 *The user has active control over their participation in the VE *Interaction can take place without face-to-face communication which many people with autism find particularly confusing *The social complexity of the situation and the non-verbal and verbal features of communication can be directly controlled and manipulated *Interaction takes place within an environment that is safe from potentially negative real world consequences  

 The research showed that the VE significantly helped people with ASDs in learning social skills, and provides an interesting example of how the unique features of a VE can be exploited for learning. (See www.virart.nott.ac.uk/asi for more info) 

 While I've only touched on some of the reasons why SL might be engaging for users, when you couple this potential with an increased facilitation of communication, it is clear that SL and other virtual worlds will provide online educators with an extremely valuable medium for teaching. The challenge over the coming years is how to manage and design effective courses, while continuing to explorie the many avenues of teaching and learning that might arise. Watching the NMC's (New Media Consortium) vision of what a virtual campus might look like is like watching a science fiction film. Only this future is likely to be months, as opposed to years, from now.

Hypermedia and the need for a rethink of evaluation

2006-11-18T21:58:00.000-08:00

As formats for presentation of work change, there is an associated need to adjust criteria for evaluation to adequately appreciate advances in learning, and which also encourages students to experiment with such new formats.  

 Landow raises a few points on this subject: 

 - 'Dissatisfaction with American secondary school students' abiliity to think critically has recently led to a new willingness to try evaluative methods that emphasize conceptual skills,... rather than those that stress simple data acquisition.' This is a move currently echoed in the British SecEd systems, to varying degrees of success. A good case study can be seen in schools in Jersey, who have integrated critical thinking in their syllabus in a big way. 

 - 'Instructors will have to recognise that several correct answers may exist for a single problem and that such mulitiplicity of answers does not indicate that the assigned problem is subjective or that any answer will do.' This raises a concern for consistency of evaluation. 

 - 'Skill at formulating possible explanations and hypothesizing significant relations counts as much as factual knowledge alone'. Very interesting, more on this later... 

 - In terms of the wider dissemination of knowledge and learning, a piece of work that is linked and layered with other relevant studies becomes far more valuable for other people than it would if it was just kept as a desktop file one or two people's laptop. The work becomes something that's 'out there', rather than stored away gathering dust. 

Hypertext Thinking - The Power of Interconnectivity

2006-11-05T22:01:00.000-08:00

Being users of the internet for some years now, many of us must take for granted the benefits of hypertext or interlinking. Any subject can be easily researched, with a multitude of links to follow, leading to ever more avenues of data, comments and multimedia content. Now that so much of our research information is drawn from the web, it is some wonder that web essays, or hypertext-ed essays are not par for the course in all subjects now, even in their most simplest format of a word file with the odd hyperlink thrown in. This will likely change, as library documents gradually shift from shelves to cyberspace. Drawing mainly from Landow, there seems to be good reason to encourage this shift, as bar comfort of readability, an online document is in many ways superior to a paper version.  

 One of the main benefits of an online document is that the student can create links, which the reader can follow immediately. As well as being a definite benefit to the reader (who would otherwise have to go to a library to follow up references, instead of merely clicking on to a following page), the student is encouraged to demonstrate how a particular point or piece of work sits in context with other ideas. This encourages critical thinking, not just the accumulation of knowledge, as it requires the student to critically assess the relationship between one phenomenom and another. As Landow puts it, 'perceiving possible connections and then aruing for their validity is a high-level intellectual skill'. In an online setting, learners are arguably more able to access a wide variety of related sources and demonstrate their relevance to the reader, enriching the experience for student and reader alike. This increased accessibility to sources can also be said to encourage indepence and control over learning. As Marchionini writes (quoted by Landow), 'control requires responsibility and decision-making', both features of study that lead to deep learning. 

 Another feature that a web-based essay offers is increased possibilities for collaboration among students. If a piece of work is accessible to other students online, there will be increased opportunities for others to offer proofreading corrections, suggestions for links, and constructive comments on content and style. While this open access may not appeal to all, it can certainly help to increase quality of work, and bring like-minded thinkers together. There is however a necessary element of trust needed in such open collaboration (it seems also a necessary element of many Web 2.0 features - see previous postings), and there may need to be a review of plagiarism policy, but on the whole it is likely that students will respect the integrity of others' work.  

 Perhaps the greatest benefit that Landow raises, in my view, is the observation that 'once a document is placed within a hypertext environment, (it) no longer exists alone. It always exists in relation to other documents'. While he rightly points out that the same can be said for printed documents, that there are countless citations and references that link them together, the difference lies in that 'such (printed) interrelations could exist only within the individual minds that perceived these relations or within other texts that asserted the existence of such relations. The texts themselves... existed in physical separation from one another'. With the availability of hypermedia networked systems allow the 'novice to experience the reading and thinking patterns of the expert,' without needing access to this expert. The experts linking thinking is traceable and recorded. 

 When you combine this greater scope connectivity and collaboration, with the greater *quality* of linking that Web 2.0 features, such as review systems offer, we are able as consumers of information to draw a far richer experience from online information formats, than we can from a simple printed page. This is not to say that every word should link to another subject, quite the opposite. Links should be carefully considered to add to and not distract from the point at hand. But so long as instruction on how to effectively use the oppurtunities that hypermedia offers is provided (a subject for another day) and evaluation methods are up-to-date (see next posting), I fear the days of the paper document are numbered.

Musings on Web 2.0 - 2.0

2006-10-27T21:56:00.000-07:00

... which leads to the main way of justifying the value of Web2.0 (see last posting) - the practical benefits. Steve O'Hear's article in the education section of The Guardian highlights a number of simple-to-implement practical uses for web2.0 systems. 

 [1] A travel blog for school trips. Teachers and students can log their experiences, and parents can also track and communicate with their children 

 [2] Using Flickr in art classes. Teachers and students can draw 'hotspots' on images and share/blog thoughts about these qualities, much like you would when pointing to a painting, only judgements can be logged from around the world. 

 [3] Using video blogging in media class. Students review an item by BBC head of new media using their own video blog, then edit them using iMovie, and upload them. They are then asked watch and rate each others presentations. All this encourages critical thinking of the content as well as the media. What is more, the teacher claims students were more motivated, as well as deveoping greater independence by 'enabling them to collaborate more effectively outside class'. 

 [4] Sharing good practice - wikis and blogs in education. Currently, much effort is going into using blogs and wikis in the classroom, and to promote sharing of ideas among teachers. Josie Fraser, an educational technologist is quoted as saying: "Literacy is undergoing a renaissance, thanks to weblogs, as a new generation of learners are alive to the possibilities of reading, writing and communicating in many different contexts," 

 Perhaps it may be to early too start singing the praises of web 2.0 functions too loud, but there undoubtedly *are* practical uses which engage students and teachers alike, and these uses are likely to improve with time. And if the kids are currently engaged and inspired by sites like MySpace and YouTube in a big way, then educationalists are almost duty-bound to adapt teaching practices to accommodate this ever-increasing interest.

Musings on Web 2.0 - 1.0

2006-10-25T21:52:00.000-07:00

As with many new developments in web technology, there is an associated frenzy (see previous post on OS) that heralds the new change/website/function as the-next-best-thing which will revolutionise the way we learn. Part of being an e-learning 'practitioner', I'm coming to realise, involves pouring a fair amount of water (preferrably undigested) on these flames of excitement, then focusing on the practical, and not just idealistic, advantages. However, I find myself unable to restrain myself from getting carried away with thinking that Web2.0, and all it promises, really does hold great potential, not just in practical uses (see next posting), but also in the sociological repercussions it will likely create. 

 The very moniker Web '2.0', seems to imply a qualititative change from what was before - Web 1.0, or Web 1.9 perhaps. Some challenge the name, stating it tells us nothing about this apparently different nature of the web, but as Bryan Alexander writes, the label 'Web 2.0 is far less important than the concepts, projects and practices included in its scope.' This change is well potrayed by Tim O'Reilly (2005) in the table below: 

 Web 1.0 --> Web 2.0 DoubleClick --> Google AdSense Ofoto --> Flickr mp3.com --> Napster Britannica Online --> Wikipedia personal websites --> blogging domain name speculation --> search engine optimization page views --> cost per click publishing --> participation content management systems --> wikis directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy") 

 O'Reilly highlights a significant change in web functionality, and suggests that Web 2.0 architects 'have embraced the power of the web to harness collective intelligence'. While this might be said of original internet applications, there is a real sense that Web2.0 functions have taken interactivity, collaboration and web-publishing to the next level. What James Suriowecki calls "the wisdom of crowds" comes into play big-time, and the web's vast array of information becomes to an extent self-organising. The collective attention of millions of people are now able to put value on and contribute information at a rate never experienced before. More importantly, the systems (Wikipedia, Flickr, Delicious, etc) that enable such collective contribution (thus far) do not 'degenerate into multisubjective chaos' (Alexander), but rather improve for *all* users as more and more people get involved.  

 With the meteoric rise in popularity of social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, and the similar growth of media-uploading sites such as YouTube, it is worth considering what makes these sites so special, and what is getting people so excited about Web2.0 functions.  [1] One aspect, as mentioned above, is that these facilities appear to get richer as more people use them. While the volume of data increases, the quality of data also improves, as can be seen with the 'tagging' aspect of Del.icio.us or the review system on Amazon.  [2] Another feature is that there is a real feeling that participants have some sort of sway in how these applications develop. As O'Reilly puts it, these applications 'learn from their users, using an architecture of participation to build a commanding advantage not just in the software interface, but in the richness of the shared data.'  [3] Thirdly, and significantly I believe, there is an inherent sense of *trust* amongst users. Eric Raymond's adage on Open Source, 'with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow', seems to hold true for a number of Web2.0-like systems. Notably Ebay, which relies almost entirely on its users being trustworthy, and Wikis, could not exist without this inherent trust in its users. (However, I noticed today that the wiki on Wikis is now locked due to 'vandalism'. Could this be the beginning of a slippery slope?) [4] And finally, a purely subjective observation, but which I think partly accounts for the rising popularity of all these tools, is that they are *fun*. There can be a real sense of play involved in such a rich array of interactions. The huge interest in social networking sites for pleasure and even business supports this. Online interactivity is undoubtedly stimulating (though I could be biased here!). 

 My hunch is, and I think it is reflected by the growth of media attention given to various Web2.0 phenomena (such as YouTube), that society is likely to be significantly affected by Web2.0 potentials. Web 1.0 already made a huge leap in the accessibility of information. Web 2.0 will allow for a much greater quality, or richness, of that information, as this shared global intelligence is fostered. And this will in turn affect the way businesses operate, the way democracy might work, the way people form relationships ('15% of couples getting together last year met over the internet' - The Times) and the way we are educated.  

 On the other hand, perhaps Web 2.0 is just another next-best-thing flash-in-the-pan that needs a healthy dose of you-know-what to quell unwarranted excitement...

Is the end nigh for WebCT?

2006-10-22T21:50:00.000-07:00

It is hard not to get carried away with the apparent frenzy for open source software. The open source model seems in so many ways attractive: the software is free (no cost); the software is fully customisable to the users' needs (with good developers); and it is constantly being updated and upgraded by other like-minded users. With these benefits, offered by current alternatives such as Moodle and Bodington, is a pay-by-subsription service such as WebCT unnecessary and outdated?

 It's hard to find arguments in favour of WebCT. Murmurs from the blogosphere accuse it of ring-fencing student networks, encouraging inter-connection within the platform, but without offering anything back to the wider world web. This may not necessarily be a bad aspect of the system, as it may keep a sense of cohesion amongst the student body, whilst protecting copyright of work. This latter point has always been an issue for large learning institutions, particularly amongst science subjects. There can be significant monetary gains from some research, and a protectionist view to teaching has always made sound financial sense. However, a protected network of learning is likely to inhibit learning on a larger scale. Conole (2002) mentions that open-source VLEs adopt a 'more learner-centred approach of collaborative learning,' and the wider the accessibility and networkability of ideas and data, the faster new developments will come. As Oxford uni found with their use of Bodington, material that is openly available is great for the joint honours system amongst other things. Open source networks of learning ultimately benefit the learners themselves, and HE institutions that are true to a learning ethos, should support this.

 The second main argument in favour of open source teaching systems is for the adaptability of the system. Oxford Uni again say that the fact that Bodington is free from locked-in code, it is fully customisable. And as mentioned in the Wikipedia link, the 'dynamic decision making structure makes strategic decisions depending on changing user requirements'. This cannot be done with WebCT. And with the current rapid rate of change and demand for cyber-facilities, this adaptability is vital, if learners are to be able to make full use of resources.

 Finally, there is the concern that there is no longevity of connection between students after the course if WebCT is used. Sure, students can continue to interact using seperate networking systems, but they will not have access to the VLE unless authorised by the university. This I fear comes from an effort by HE institutions to use VLEs in a similar way to a bricks-and-mortar system. The student uses the VLE much like they would a lecture theatre or tutorial room. At the end of the course, students have no access to these rooms - they are 'owned' by the universities who control access.  This concern is partly linked to Cousin's (2006) worry that the Higher Education Funding Council for England's current e-learning strategy suggests that 'e-learning should be driven by pedagogical considerations rather than the demands of the technologies themselves'. She is concerned that this mindset will 'block our view of the full potential of computer technology for learning purposes'. I share this view, that to fully realise the scope that VLEs have for initial and lifelong learning, universities must relinquish this need to create a system that models the traditional didactic approach, as mirrored by WebCT.

 It will likely require a paradigm change, as Cousins hints at, or a new 'learning ecology' (Garrison and Anderson, 2003), if HE institutions are to support students in a way that makes full use of current learning technologies. And currently, it is the open source VLE model that takes things furthest away from a traditional linear approach, to something that has the greatest scope for adapting to current changes and potentials of online teaching and the changing needs of students.

E-Portfolios revisited - walled garden or open space?

2006-10-19T21:45:00.000-07:00

From current literature and discussion, it seems apparent that the jury's out on the purpose, scope and value of E-Portfoios (EP). Barrett, H., & Carney, J. (2005) list apparently conflicting paradigms and purposes that are irreconcilable. For instance, an EP used for marketing uses ought not, or cannot, also be used for learning and assessment. They also highlight the difference between *formative* and *summative* assessment, raising the question as to whether the same EP can be reasonably used for both. For me, effective assessment is a challenge for the institution, not the learner (see previous posting). It would be a real shame to lose a 'powerful tool to support deep learning' ... 'in favour of the skills checklist'. Hence if EPs are to be of value at all, assessment by instituitions must accommodate their scope, without being constrictive. 

However, this issue begs the question: if EPs are such a headache to assess, should they be a necessary feature of online courses at all? (I notice they are not a compulsory element of this course!) Barrett and Carney list a number of positive attributes of EPs which suggest they *are* of noticeable value. These include: establishment of an emotional connection between learner and learnings (Barbara Cambridge, 2004), helping to develop authentic voice, creation of lifelong learning tool, and support of deep learning (Patton, 2003). Graham Atwell (2006) also includes in his podcast, that an EP (or PLE) offers a 'learner-orientated' system, which 'breaks down the barriers between consumers and creators'. I get the sense that EPs certainly are of value, but am not convinced that they should be a compulsory part of all online study. If the course is teaching botany, or sailing, or languages, where online savvy is not really a learning outcome, then assessment of the EP instead of the *content of the EP* seems entirely unnecessary. If the course is web-related (such as this one), where effective online presentation of work and/or understanding of online environments is a learning outcome of the course, then it makes very good sense to assess students' ability to present themselves well online by asking them to create a top-of-the-range EP.  So unless the course is specifically about online environments/ web design/ computing/ etc, my feeling is that EPs should be optional, used simply as storage of 'artefacts', or completed and ongoing work. There are so many online systems for presenting identity and experiences, that to enforce one format over another seems overly prescriptive. However, as individuals' digital presence and collection of data grows (documents, pictures, videos, podcasts, etc), whether work/study-related or personal, it makes sense to consolidate all of these with a single portal for online self-presentation, rather than having everything scattered around disparate web publishing systems.

It's for this use that the EP will ultimately come into its own - as a single *nest* or *museum* for storing items and digital experiences. And just as when museum artefacts are skilfully, thoughtfully and attractively put together, the museum itself becomes an object of value, the EP itself can become greater than the sum of its parts.

Assessment vs Creativity?

2006-10-16T21:42:00.000-07:00

Sian's final questions in her comment to the previous posting opens up a huge issue of how to assess multi-faceted multimedia learning presentations > Why should we expect learners to subsume their creative display of their learning into a pre-defined matrix set up by the e-portfolio at all? Shouldn't we rather be teaching them web skills to enable them to become confident builders and architects of their own web spaces?

 Yes - absolutely. Part of the attraction of multimedia technology is the myriad creative choices that a designer can make. Any pressure from institutions to restrain this creative process is likely to also restrict learning potential. However, unlimited opportunities to present learnings is likely to make assessment by pre-established criteria very difficult - and effective assessment is certainly a valuable aspect of education. There appears to be a conundrum: how does an institution allow freedom of creativity in presentation of learning, thus encouraging 'deep learning', without sacrificing the valuable and necessary benefits of effective assessment?

 Prof. Stephen Heppell (heppell.net) states these concerns clearly in his presentation of ideas for debate to the DfES on this very issue: 'Currently ..., despite many good intentions, our one-size-fits all assessment models seem to only offer convenience for our institutions and administration, whilst capping the ambition of learners and teachers alike. In the motorway of progress that our best schools, best teachers and best learners are embarked on, assessment is at best a chicane, at worst a bottleneck that brings them all completely to a halt. That won't do, will it? And of course the personalisation agenda has simply amplified the problems that assessment faces.'

 It seems that to avoid constricting the creativity that current technologies enable learners to explore, institutions require more sophisticated systems of assessment, that can adequately value the ever-widening scope of media through which learners can currently present their work. Here lies a challenge more for the instutions and course designers, than for the learners themselves.

E-Portfolios - Purpose and Accessibility

2006-10-09T21:38:00.000-07:00

A key consideration with e-portfolios (EP) it seems is PURPOSE. What is the EP meant to reflect, and who is the intended audience?

 The examples I've looked at so far fall into roughly two camps: some who present themselves as a collection of past acheivements (essays, projects, etc.) and some who present themselves more personally (with multimedia, like a facebook profile). While past acheivements are easy to assess and identify learning, the more 'colourful' examples are more accessible, engaging and interesting (my view). Should an e-portfolio then stike a balance between showing learning and being accessible to others? Again this depends on purpose. If the EP is intended as merely a collection of data, then so be it - let it appear lacklustre, even if its content is not. However, this minimalist design doesn't, in my view, encourage students to present their learnings to the world - surely one of the primary aims of education: the ability to engage others through understanding. my view is if an EP can be made accessible and engaging, using multimedia, linked networking facilities, blogs, etc., then through engaging others more effectively, it more usefully displays learning, regardless of intended recipients. As Lise Agarbaek includes in her own EP (one of examples): 'Our culture is no longer primarily based on the written word. It is now equally based on the viewed image.' If the majority of web-based services and software that we use are vibrant and engaging, why should we present our learnings any differently?

Feenberg: Anxieties and pitfalls during CMC

2006-10-06T21:34:00.000-07:00

Feenberg raises some interesting observations about the nature of CMC: that 'phatic' signs are bybassed; that responses and even silences can amplify social insecurities; that online identity is somehow removed from the world; and that communication requires 'absorbtion'. His later suggestions for effective moderation seem to offer a way to minimise these apparent risks and hazards involved in CMC. It is certainly insightful at highlighting the potential pitfalls involved in CMC but i have some issues with his arguments.

First of all, I get a strong sense that his concern about insecurities is itself over-amplified, and that either I am just insensitive, or the product of an e-literate younger generation (or both), but I would suggest that CMC is, if anything, anxiety-REDUCING, rather than -inducing. This is mainly due to the lack of visual and aural stimuli in CMC - as a result participants will judge each other (and themselves) solely on words, nothing else, hence cutting out many things to be anxious about. Admittedly people may become anxious if they feel they are unable to match the standard of prose and content contributed by the group, but this would be the same in a f2f context. In a CMC environment, participants will not become anxious about how they look, how they sound, whether they're too old or young or how they dress. They are also less likely to feel obliged to conform to social heirarchies.

 Secondly, far from being 'distanced from the world and itself', the online of identity of a participant is in my view no less 'authentic' or 'real' than in a f2f setting. The medium of self-expression is different, but the person is not. Take for example, a person using sign language - the medium for communication differs from speech, but the medium allows for no less of an expression of selfhood than spoken speech. Similarly, when a person uses written language to present themselves, an identity of sorts is formed, on which others form judgements based on vocabulary, content, style etc, and though different to one formed using visual or auditory cues, is an identity that is no less valid.

 Thirdly, I am not entirely convinced that the goal of CMC is or should be 'to prolong the game and avoid making the last move'. It may be argued that 'absorption', or the practice of 'communicating something AND evoking participation', makes for an engaging discussion experience, but this could be said of any medium of communication, be it CMC, speaking, or even sign language. Feenberg has in my view, not really presented any aspect of communication that is consigned solely to CMC.

 That's enough gripes. And so on a positive note, I think his suggestions for effective moderation are useful, particularly his view that in CMC the moderator should be more prescriptive than s/he may be in a f2f setting. I would also add that the moderator plays a vital role in keeping the focus of the discussion on task. It seems from the short experience I've had so far in this sychronous environment that it can be easy to get side-tracked - though whether this likelihood is any greater than in 'real life' I've yet to decide.

Off the mark...

2006-09-19T10:53:00.000-07:00

First official posting: deep breath, here goes.

 
Personal expectations first. Whatever people may have to say about the internet, one thing is undoubtedly true - the internet changes everything. And whatever field I finally end up in, the internet and computers are highly likely to play an integral part in that system. So with this eventuality in mind I enrolled in this E-Learning course with a view to exploring the potentials of what the internet and associated technologies and platforms have to offer, not only in education, training and learning, but also in business, people management and communication systems.

 My expectations are that I learn about: technologies that will enrich my current work environement, with a mind to creating a better communication link between long distance trainers, and an online method for course development (this may be a simple message board or blog, or something more detailed); technologies that can be used in a class room, to aid learning of children and/or adults; the psychological and social impacts of sustained virtual networking; how games can assist learning; and finally, the bigger picture - how are we all likely to be affected by online technologies in future societies. A lot to be getting on with, but it's always good to have goals.

 And on to hopes and concerns. Hopes really link in to expectations/goals above, but in addition to these, I hope that above all that course will be enjoyable and stimulating - tho judging by my recent excitement at setting up and involving myself with the course so far, enjoyment seems inevitable (ask me again when first assignment due!).

 As for concerns, none yet - tho after tearing some of what's left of my hair out over accessing (or not accessing) the WebCT system - I have e-learnt something already, which I fear may not be the last reminder: never to completely trust technology. Sometimes it's best just to switch everything off, and go and read a book instead.