Week 3 – Update on game experience

While I did not enjoy the arcade games, I have enjoyed Solitaire, Tetris and Columns and this week Mahjong and Bookworm. I haven’t had a chance to play Scrabble yet but that is a game I have played since I was a child.  I also have always played Solitaire as well as puzzle games such as crosswords and sudoku.  I like to look for patterns and also having some time to reflect, although all the games had a timed element but I didn’t find them as frantic as the arcade games.

I didn’t realise how complex Mahjong was – I was concentrating on clearing all the tiles. I did notice the scoring but didn’t understand it. It wasn’t until Anna directed us to the link explaining the rules and the different suits you could make that I realised the complexity. But I am quite happy to play it on a simple level. I think I could get into it, and slowly learn the different suits you could make and think more strategically.

I never gave much thought before this course about defining what is ‘play’.  I think I just thought of it as a negative – the opposite of work. But I enjoyed the Kane and Sutton-Smith readings. I liked the focus on the different rhetorics of ‘play’ and situating them within their historical and/or scholarly context.  In particular, I find interesting the tension Kane points out between ancient (fate, chance and community) and modern rhetorics (freedom, progress and imagination).  As Kane says, there is a paradox:

To be a player is to try to live and thrive between freedom and determinism, chance and necessity. P. 40

vs.

I am not sure, though, how much the modern rhetorics are free of fate and determinism.  Progress can be seen as deterministic – particularly following Piaget - that there are stages of development that a child must go through.  Intertwining this developmental approach with play, turns play as something inherent in our genetic makeup, something we do not have control over.  Rather than being the ‘playthings’ of the gods, the child is a ‘plaything’ of his/her genetic make-up. Kane does touch upon this in saying that there is a tension between the modern rhetoric of play as progress –something that is hard-wired in our make-up and the modern rhetoric of play as imagination.  But Kane talks about our biological urge fusing with our creative imagination.  But where does our creative imagination come from? It comes back to the age old debate of nature vs. nurture.  But instead of posing fate and freedom or nature and nurture as oppositions, shouldn’t they be seem as a kind of continuum – in some areas we have more control than others. Or should they be visualized as concentric circles with freedom within fate/ or nature.  That we have certain ‘room for manoeuvre’ within a certain context.  Hence, our genetic composition or social circumstances at birth are fate or beyond our control.  But within that context, we have some freedom in the ‘raw material’ we have to start with.  And isn’t that what happens within game?  There are rules that are given but within the context of rules, we have some control over how we play the game.

Kane brings an interesting dimension into the discussion of play – considering what is ethical play. 

by dignifying our play with an ethical force, we can begin to create and act, rather than simply consume and spectate p. 62 

I think his choice of the term dignifying is revealing.  It seems he is countering the interpretation of play as being frivolous.  But there is also a moral dimension in his argument which is a critique of what he sees as the dominance of Western consumer-oriented society.

References

Kane, P. (2005) Chapter 2, 'A General Theory of Play'. In The Play Ethic : a Manifesto for a Different Way of Living. London, Pan. p35-6

Sutton-Smith, B. (1997) Chapter 1, 'Play and Ambiguity'. In The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

 

  

Play

I enjoyed the Rousseau references in Kane’s work, which led to the idea of removing boundaries that would, as later indicated by Maria Montessori, allow children’s “natural urge to explore and hypothesize, compare and dramatized.”

In secondary schools, the connotations carried by the term ‘play’ are very much the domain of primary and pupils are expected to have left that behind.

This paper explored the ideas whereby ‘play’ allowed the player (children) to articulate and simulate ideas and imaginative constructs in the ‘real’ world; it facilitates the inevitability of ‘change’ that shapes our futures and destinies.

I now view ‘play’ as a powerful activity, which should underpin – wherever possible – educational activities and processes.  ‘Teaching to the test’ suits the passive, simply regurgitate content model of education – one born from the Dickens era and the Industrial Revolution.  If we are to produce critical minds, we must allow these minds to ‘forage’.

This week we are looking at the theme of natives versus immigrants on the web, the technology being explored is twitter. I will leave the discussion about natives to my next blog but wanted to say a few words about twitter service/product which I have never felt comfortable with until now.

 

I will start with an admission – until this week I have never really used twitter. I explored it several times, run a few searches, looked at the discussions, but never contributed (or for that matter even set up a profile). My perception of it is is stronger than that of the BBC: “Twitter tweets are 40% 'babble'” (I believe that they were using a very lenient definition of 'babble'). In fact, a random screenshot taken from the twitter homepage shows the topics discussed:

 

 

So, while war rages in Afghanistan and Iraq, cars in the US are losing their breaks (Toyota) and MPs in the UK are asked to pay back their expenses the main topics being discussed on twitter are – entertainment and boy bands (4/7 topics) and technology (2/7 topics), I tried reading the last thread “OhJustLikeMe” but still have no idea what it was about.

 

On the very first page of “the University of Google” by Tara Barbazon, I found the following quote: “Students, in these ruthless times, desperately wants to feel something – anything – beyond the repetitive and pointless patterns of the casualised workplace and the selection of mobile phone ring tones.” I have to admit that after following a few of the threads appearing as the most trendy in twitter (and I am really not a fan of boy bands) I found little evidence of this on Twitter. If anything this reminded me much more of the nihilism that Dreyfus mentions in “on the Internet”; Twitter encourages you to get lost in the crowd, commit to nothing but have an opinion about everything as long as, it is in less than 140 characters. Whereas some of my fellow students found Dreyfus' book to be disparaging and depressing I was actually encouraged when I ran into this headline: “60% Of Twitter Users Quit After A Month”. Some of the metrics behind that report may be flawed but the comments to the article (and others presenting the same data) all circle around “what is twitter for?”

 

I have to admit that I found twitter to be almost disabling - it seems to encourage the culture of “looking for”, no new idea was actually developed during our chat, things written by other people were simply recycled. So, is twitter the human-based search engine that Dreyfus believes is needed? Not in my mind, simply because - if you do not know to follow then you cannot find the “good stuff”.

 

On a final note, while I do find twitter to be of very limited use in the classroom (and more so in the corporate training environment) I did find the conversation that we had as a group to be very engaging. Saying that, this had more to do with the content of the conversation rather than the medium it was done through. This, along with the Skype conversation we had the week before is pushing me in the direction of synchronous communication – what if we could replace the corporate training 'flip books' with an hour-long chat were people from different locations guided by more experienced employees gets to develop and understand, truly understand, ideas and information. This will never be a tool to cover compliance requirements but in the information economy could be a very powerful, differentiating, tool.

Last week I was frustrated by the arcade games I was playing.  I realized that they weren’t just random and that there were patterns but I couldn’t quite make out the patterns. At one point, I stopped the Pacman to see if I could discern a pattern in the behaviour of the ghosts (without any success!). Having read Greenfield now, I realise that was the wrong strategy. The strategy is not in identifying a pattern in just one element of the game e.g. the ghosts – but the pattern depends on the interaction between the ghosts, the pacman and the board itself.

I was starting to ‘feel’ that some parts of the board were more dangerous than others.  But I did not have the patience to pursue and investigate that feeling. I think it does have to do with learning styles – as Emma mentioned on the Discussion Board.  Thinking of Kolb’s learning cycle, I think arcade games would favour those who prefer an active experimentation style.  I, on the other hand, have a more reflective learning style and the sheer speed of the games does not allow any time for reflection. 

James Paul Gee’s account of the view that videogames are a waste of time as they have no content has resonance with the views expressed by my friends including my husband.  I never held that view myself mainly because I have no experience of those games.  Gee argues elegantly that a semiotic domain is not just content but...

”a  lived and historically changing set of social practices. It is in these social practices that 'content' is generated, debated and transformed via certain distinctive was of thinking, talking, valuing, acting, and often, writing and reading. “p.21

For people who have never engaged in playing videogames, the ‘silliness’ of the content is an easy target.  But Gee demonstrates that a lot of learning can be acquired in well-designed games. If a game is actively and critically played the player:

·         Learns to experience in a new way

·         Gains the potential to join and work with a new affinity group

·         Develops resources for future learning and problem solving in related semiotic domains

·         Learns to think of semiotic domains as design spaces that engage and manipulate people in certain ways and help create certain relationships in society among people which could have social justice implications

The key to critical learning is the ability of the player to be able to reflect on, to critique and manipulate the design grammar of a game at the meta level.  This requires looking well beyond the content of a game – but how it is structured, what elements it has, the characteristics of these elements, how it is similar and different to other games of this type. 

Gee sees the value of videogames in that they:

“...situate meaning in a multimodal space through embodied experiences to solve problems and reflect on the intricacies of the design of imagined worlds and the design of both real and imagined social relationships and identities in the modern world.” p. 48

The player learns to think critically about the simulation and thus gain literacy of multimodal spaces.

Gee points out that the key is not questioning the ‘content’ of games per se but whether it is worth spending time pursuing the semiotic domain of a particular game.  And the questions he poses are ones of value judgements:

·         Is this a good way to experience the world?

·         Is this a good and valuable affinity group to join?

·         Are these resources for future learning applicable to other good and valued semiotic domains?

• is this domain leading the learner to reflect on design spaces and their intricate relationships to each other in ways that could lead to critique, innovation and good and valued thinking and acting in society? 

In the beginning of the book, Gee argues that even violent video games can be valuable. And I can see that he is thinking beyond the actual content.  But in terms of the value questions he poses, I feel there is a contradiction here. I have not read yet what he says in particular about violent games but Greenfield indicates that it is action rather than violence which children find attractive.

References

Gee, J. P. (2003) Chapter 2, 'Semiotic Domains: Is playing video games a "waste of time"?'In What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. (core textbook)

Greenfield, P. M. (1984) Chapter 7, 'Video Games'. In Mind and media : the effects of television, video games, and computers. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press

Kolb, D. (1993). The process of experiential learning. In Culture and processes of Adult Learning. M. Thorpe, R. Edwards, and A. Hanson (Eds.). (Buckingham, OUP): pp. 138-156

 

This week the Learning Technologies show (2010) took place at the Olympia exhibition Centre (The 27^th and 28^th of January). Working for a company that offers a number of products in this field I spent both days exhibiting at the event. This gave me an excellent opportunity to contrast where the corporate world is in terms of e-learning (technologies and usage) with how e-learning is used in the academic setting (having been on the course for two weeks now).

It seems as if the corporate world is still using the “traditional” e-learning of two decades ago: the number of companies still offering e-learning authoring (“click on the 'next' button 30 times and you are done”) is phenomenal. On the administrative side the main products being offered are LMS systems (which are mainly responsible for scheduling the presence of employees in classrooms or when they need to go through e-learning packages). In other words while interfaces have changed and systems have been speeding up there is little change in this field from the 1990s.

The buzz words of yesteryear – Mobile learning has now become more common (being used mostly for performance support and just in time knowledge) and so while many companies offer something in this field it is no longer a main attraction.

There is however some good news for corporate learning: the main product which seems to be making tracks is the e-portfolio. In fact, in a number of conversations that I have had during the show it seems as if corporates are finally starting to understand that being able to schedule employee A in classroom B at time C (with an LMS) does not actually mean that employee A has learned anything. Therefore, e-portfolio (and 'Talent management') systems are becoming of greater interest as they offer a mixture of skills and competency management (“what does the employee know” rather than “what does the employee need to learn”).

According to researchers such as Jay Cross most learning is informal. In such a case managing the skills and competencies of an employee rather than what they need to learn is very good news for learning in general. Over the next decade I believe that we are going to see the LMS become a subset of the e-portfolio system (it will still be needed to track learning for compliancy reasons).

The second trend that was obvious at the show is all about “social learning” on the one side this is closer to what is happening in the academic environment but it also acknowledges the way that younger employees (those currently joining the workforce) live their digital lives. The theme of “Google is today's main learning application” is a recurring one appearing in Barbazon's “the University of Google” and other sources. However, we have to remember that these books have all ready been out for a while (3 years in Barbazon's case) and the younger generation look at Facebook, MySpace and Twitter as their main port of call. In other words we have gone from learning from a teacher (with the book) to learning from an infinite library (searching it via Google) to learning from our peers. An example of this is given by Steve Johnson in his article “How Twitter will change the way we live”: describing an instance where a certain celebrity (Oprah) asked for help removing ticks from her dog.

I think that the main significance of this 'peer learning' to the corporate environment (and this is the main point which interests me personally) is that it brings closer the learning organisation as described in such books as Peter M. Senge's - “The Fifth Discipline” and Argyris and Schon's “Organizational Learning II”. Achieving the state of a learning organisation is not possible without the help of technology due to the simple reason of mass – the amount of data generated, updated, stored, queried and retrieved on a daily basis is by far too much for a non-technological system to handle. In his article “How Twitter will change the way we live” Steve Johnson claims that the value of twitter (and this apply to any system which generate great volumes of data) is not in the data it helps create but in the tools that allow users to manipulate and search it and so transform the data into information. I will be following closely the development of these systems for the corporate environment and their impact.

On a personal note, now that the show is finally over the weeks of preparation has paid off and I can finally returned (Begin) to make a more regular contribution to this blog and my studies in general. I look forward to this end to the reduction in day-to-day pressure.

James Paul Gee's 5 Learning Principles are extended here:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~lsmithg/jamespaulgee2

 

 

I found the Greenfield article extremely engaging.

She begins by stating that moving visual imagery (p89) is important and is developed via the skills acquired during TV viewing - an activity still frowned upon if undertaken to extremes. But it is the interaction – being able to control the narrative in addition that creates the engagement or the fascination with videogames.  Other factors include, automatic score keeping, randomness, audio, speed (91)

I have an interest in gender roles, when considering any ICT (teaching S3 & S4 all boys classes) and was interested in her observation that the entry point to computing is a via gaming, which was predominantly male. (94)  I find that boys in mixed classes can often be heard discussing computer games, especially their collaborations/challenges online.  Spatial skills, said to better exhibited by males.

I was interested in the principle that the human brain looks for patterns as a way to discern the world: computer games call up inductive skills much more (100)  Pattern recognition is required, as is parallel processing – the assimilation of several sources of information at the same time.

Whitton notes that:  

• Pictorial – parallel
• Audible – serial

something which I am keenly aware of during my teaching practice. Also, one must consider the context/setting in interpreting “interacting dynamic variables” (102).

Which leads to the issue of ‘transfer’ – into other domains – and generalization of these skills.  How can this be achieved?  For an English Teacher, Fantasy Games allow for the creation of far more complex characterization.  This is useful in conjunction with any imaginative/creative writing activities - I have noted that the Neverwinter Nights has the feature(s) for users to create and build within the videogame domain.  Again, something that offer more features that allow for creativity. 

A LADDER OF CHALLENGES

Closely linked to the motivation and the maintenance of an optimal level of engagement:

• visible progress
• improved score
• next level progression, to a level of increased difficulty

during all of which, the user (children) need to feel control.

This seems to be the elixir of creative and successful education.

This is a reflection on this week’s reading, my experience of playing the platform games of this week, and how I am relating it to my own work on supporting qualitative analysis through the use of software tools such as CAQDAS e.g. ATLAS.ti, NVivo, MAXqda etc.

I found Whitton’s thesis that good learning activities share similar characteristics to games as illuminating.  While a game may have more or less of the characteristics she defines – competition, challenge, exploration, fantasy, goals, interaction, outcomes, people, rules and safety, so too, can learning activities share some of these characteristics.  She acknowledges that some of these characteristics need to be understood with caution when applied to education e.g. safety is not usually relevant as the outcome of a course will have real-life consequences – however, safe activities can be constructed to aid learning e.g. in this module, our contribution to the discussion board is not graded but people use it as a way to test their ideas.  Her premise is that we as educators can learn from good game design and I look forward to reading more of her book.

Newman’s discussion about the context of where games are played helped me understand my frustration with the platform games we played with this week – Pacman, Donkey Kong and Frogger.  They were originally arcade games, designed to be played on coin-operated machines to generate money for the arcade owners.  Given this function they can’t last that long.  But also playing them was a public performance and observers could learn about patterns and tricks by observing how others played.  The noise, which I found irritating when I played (I turned off the sound), was an essential attraction of the games. Newman reminded me of the arcade halls in British piers – Brighton is the one I know.  And the sound of the games and the flashing lights was a way to attract kids – it made the pier an ‘exciting place’.  There are quite a few Youtube videos on arcade games and there is a big nostalgia for them.  The comments on the Youtube videos below support that. I am of a different generation so missed out on playing games in arcades.  My step-children did (and my daughter is of another generation yet again).

A more polished tribute to arcade games.

In relation to my own work, Newman’s discussion around paedia and ludus is pertinent.  I do consulting and training on supporting people who are analyzing qualitative data (i.e. unstructured data, such as indepth interviews, videos, graphics etc.)  I have always talked about ‘playing’ with the data when starting an analysis.  The CAQDAS software platforms I support can be seen as ‘playgrounds’ where the data is located and can be played with.  Although I am currently exploring (and have recently published an article) on how Web 2.0 tools have the potential to do the same.  There is a tension though, particularly with new students, between wanting and needing rules and the freedom to play.  But this tension is also apparent in different epistemological stances towards data analysis. In particular, those of a post-modern turn have been turned off these software tools because of a belief that they impose some rigid structure – are rule-bound in some way – whereas in fact they are flexible generic tools that the analyst decides how to use – much the same way Newman argues that the player has control over moving between paedia and ludus.  While I have always thought of qualitative data analysis as about playing with the data, I never thought of the platforms as similar to games before.   This week has given me a lot to think about!

 References

Newman, J. (2004) Chapter 2, 'What is a video game? Rules, Puzzles and Simulation'. In Videogames, London: Routledge.

Whitton, N. (2010) Chapter 2, 'Recognising the characteristics of digital games'. In Learning with Digital Games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher education, London: Routledge.

‘Popeye’

‘Popeye’ is an arcade platform game, developed and released by Nintendo in 1982, featuring an 8-bit rendering of the eponymous cartoon character, and features Olive Oyl, See Pea’, Wimpy, Bluto and Sea Hag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popeye_(arcade_game)

This game draws upon existing cultural references and uses the relations and enmities between the characters as the strategies and mini-plots, which span three levels.