I am blogging at this point in the course about ARGS because my ‘flow’ in this course was seriously disrupted at the end of Week 7 because the hard drive of my main laptop got corrupted.  While I had some things backed up on my back up computer, I did not have everything – including all the work I had done for this course.  I was able to complete the first assignment having been granted a few days extension.  During those extension days I was completely focused and immersed in my chosen game and the review write up.  However, after I completed my review, I had to go back to re-building my laptop, prioritising the training material that I had lined up over the next few weeks and a presentation I had to give at a conference.  While I continued to do the reading for the course, I was not able to play games as I had to spend what time I had to try to reconstruct all my lost data for my business – contacts, engagements, accounts (I haven’t even started on that!). 

With my ‘flow’ interrupted, I had been finding it difficult to get back into the course. I had been thrown into what Czkiszentmihalyi describes as an anxiety state – I had too many challenges to handle at once.  However, I had been completely immersed in the course before my IT disaster.  I started trying to get back into the course by looking at some Alternative Reality Games.  I was particularly interested in this type of game as it seemed to be most suited to the kind of game which would be relevant to my work. In fact, I reviewed Missing: Since January for my first assignment because while it is not a true ARG it has elements of an ARG:  an ongoing storyline, moving between the game and the real world (real fact-based sites, emails),  a ‘this is not a game’ attitude and a simulation of collaboration among different people trying to solve the clues that the Phoenix gives as to the whereabouts of the journalist he kidnapped. (It is a single player game but collaboration is simulated by receiving real emails with ideas on how to interpret the Phoenix’s messages from what appears to be real people also looking for the journalist.) I enjoyed Missing: Since January despite being sometimes frustrated by the difficultness of some of the puzzles.

However, I was disappointed in the ARG games I first looked at – Darfur is Dying and the Viola Quest.  Darfur is Dying is simply depressing – it is incredibly difficult to get to the well to bring water back to the village without being picked up by the patrols.  One by one you watch your little avatars – representing villagers - disappear.  The link to the real world is made by asking you every time an avatar is picked up to contribute something for the people of the Darfur. I found it too simplistic and appealing only to the converted. I also felt uncomfortable of the situation in Darfur being represented by a cartoon-style game.  I also could not get engaged in the Viola Quest – the storyline did not appeal to me, and I did not have any need to be inducted in the Manchester Metropolitan University community.

My re-engagement in this course occurred when we explored MMOGs through playing World of Warcraft and Everquest II. It may have been a combination of the immersive nature of these games and re-connecting with my fellow students that re-generated my ‘flow’ in this course.  But it could also be something about how these games can generate flow in players.

Entering flow is largely a function of how attention has been focused in the past and how it is focused in the present by the activity’s structural conditions….Clear proximal goals, immediate feedback, and just-manageable levels of challenge orient the organism, in a unified and coordinated way, so that attention becomes completely absorbed into the stimulus field defined by the activity.” Nakamura, J. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002:92)

I found that I was able to develop my character, learn how my type of character fits into the wider frame of the game world and was able to successfully proceed through several levels.  I have blogged about my experiences of MMOGs and issues they raise – particularly about ethics.

Having successfully explored MMOGs I decided to revisit ARGs.  I read Kim et al.’s (2009) evolution of ARGs.  I found it interesting that the first ARG – The Beast (2001) – was designed as a promotional tool for the film – A.I.  This idea that ARGs can be used as a viral marketing tool was developed further by other games – I love Bees (2004) for the video game Halo 2, Last Call Poker (2005) for the video game – Gun, Year Zero (2007) for Nine Inch Nails’ CD of the same name, and Free Fall (2008) to promote the film – Eagle Eye.  All these games benefitted by a large marketing budget which is obvious by the quality of the various artefacts of the games.  (I explored in particular – I love Bees  and Year Zero.) While I don’t believe that top production values of videos, web-sites, posters etc alone make a game exciting, the combination of a good game design AND top production values are winners.

Kim et al. (2009) make the point that ARGs they discussed used participatory mechanisms ‘to build and strengthen affinity groups. A set of problems aligns the interest and attention of a group and pulls them into the story’s action’. This development and use of affinity groups is key attraction for educators. In my case, I think ARGs can be used to develop qualitative data analysts - creating a group environment where novice researchers can learn from each other, given an interesting area to research.  Kim et al. (2009) point to the decline of professional journalists and the domination of information by a few media sources.  They see ARGs as a way ‘to make sense of amateur data and provide structure and interactive experiences. The role of the storymaster will likely evolve to become more flexible and open...’ They seem to be promoting ARGs as a structure for everyday folk to make sense of the mass of information about the world.  This seems similar to the analysis process in research.  Of course, who frames the stories will have a lot of power in what they are proposing.

Jane McGonigal who was involved in designing some of the viral marketing ARGs (including I love Bees)  has now moved to using ARGs to promote social action.

 

 Also see the link below:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2008/mcgonigal

She designed World without Oil – a game where participants from all over the world had to imagine a real world potential problem – how would they manage when the oil ran out.  Her current game is Evoke which is focused on youth in Africa although anyone can play. It is described as a ‘crash course for changing the world’ – teaching you collaboration, creativity, entrepreneurship and sustainability. The World Bank is one of the sponsors. As can be seen from the promotional video, the production values are high but so is the design. (It cost $500,000 to design.)

 

However, even though at the time of writing this blog Evoke is live as a game, it has already inspired a parody game – called Invoke – a crash course in saving capitalism – inspired by the World Bank and their game Evoke.

 

 

Christy Dena (a game design consultant) has blogged about the implications of this parody.  The first point she makes is that the fact that Evoke has been parodied is evidence that the ARG genre (a game form that has confused many up until now) is a recognized form – particularly as the parody ARG was designed by people outside of the ARG community. 

It wouldn’t be a parody of form if there was no recognisable form to parody. This means the mechanics and missions have become somewhat standardised. They are not part of experimental fringe culture, but have moved into mainstream creative forms if you like. (Dena, 2010).

The second point Dena makes is that Invoke is also a parody of McGonigal’s claim that games can save or change the world.  Adrian Hon (a cross-media entertainment designer – a term he prefers to ARG designer) has blogged about the misleading claims that have been made for ARGs. He cites that while World without Oil had 2176 registered players over 32 weeks, only 276 were active (i.e. submitted at least one piece of work) and only 170 submitted more than one piece of work.  Superstruct is another ARG where players fast forward to 2019 and try to find solutions for multiple threats to human survival. Hon reports that of 8901 registered players only 554 superstuctures were created.   Hon’s point is that while these games may attract a large number of players initially, they are impacting on only a small percentage of them. He says it is overstating the case that games can change the world. However, he acknowledges that in its first week Evoke had over 8000 registered users and these users had submitted 3000 pieces of content. It is also truly international and has succeeded in attracting players from Africa.  Hon feels that games like Evoke and World without Oil can be inspirational but it is misleading to say that they can change the world.

My preference for the ARG game genre in relation to my own work is that the game is enmeshed within the real world rather than entering a fictional game world and that it uses multiple media and communication tools.  The players are playing as themselves but they are linked together to form a community of novice researchers. My goal is that they learn to be qualitative analysts. I notice that the game Evoke also has a role for mentors in the game which is an idea I can use when constructing my game. My concern is that while it is possible to construct an ARG with basic Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, wikis, emails etc. (as Whitton suggests), the ARGs that I found that worked were the commercial ones, the ones that had a lot of money to produce them.  Also even in these, they needed a critical mass of several thousand players in order to get enough interaction going among players. Despite this, I feel optimistic that it is possible to use as a model these successful ARGs to produce a scaled down version for educational purposes.

References

Dena, C. (2010) Parody and Design, blog post March 8 2010, from Christy’s Corner of the Universe, http://www.christydena.com/2010/03/parody-and-design/ accessed 8 April 2010

Hon, A. (2010) Can a game save the world?, blog post March 9 2010, from Mssv, http://mssv.net/2010/03/09/can-a-game-save-the-world/ accessed 8 Apritl 2010

McGonigal, J. (2008) Saving the world through game design, New Yorker conference video, Stories o f the Near Future. http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2008/mcgonigal#ixzz0kPkbB4Y8

Kim, J., Lee, E., Thomas, T. and Dombrowski, C. (2009) Storytelling in New Media: The case of alternative reality games – 2001-2009, New Monday, vol. 14, issue 6.

Nakamura, J. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002) (2002) Ch. 7 The concept of flow in Snyder, C.R. et al Handbook of Positive Psychology, Oxford University Press

Whitton, N. (2010) Learning with Digital Games, Routledge.

 

 

 

MMOGS such as World of Warcraft and EverQuest can be viewed as communities of practice.  Etienne Wenger (2006 - http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm ) identifies three elements that characterise a community of practice:

·         The domain – a shared domain of interest that members are committed to and have a shared competence that distinguishes them from others

·         The community – members engage in joint activities and build relationships so that they can learn from each other

·         The practice – members are practitioners who develop a shared resource of knowledge and expertise through sustained interaction

 

 The community of practice is evident in the guilds of World of Warcraft .  As John Seely Brown  (2005) points out, guild-building is important in WoW. High level quests have to be carried out by a well-organized team with players who have diverse skills e.g. warriors, healers and spell-casters.   The WoW guild has all three elements that Wenger identifies as essential to a community of practice.

David White in his case study of World of Warcraft in Whitton (2010) mentions that there are three significant techniques that WoW uses to encourage the formation of communities of players (or communities of practice):

·         Their management of presence

·         The formation of multi-skilled teams

·         The pursuit of clear goals within an overarching narrative

White claims that the first two techniques have not been properly considered by those designing online learning environments.  White makes the point that interaction in a community requires fostering both a feeling that the environment is safe and a feeling of trust that others in the community will respond to one.  White claims that WoW successful does this by how they manage presence.  The player is immediately aware of the presence of others in the game by being able to see their avatars.  More importantly there is a general chat channel which is open to all, so the player can see the interactions going on without having to risk engaging in interaction.  It is this low-risk management of presence that allows the novice player to learn the etiquette of this new world enabling them to eventually more from being an individual player to a group player.  In addition, Hagel, Brown and Davison stress that there is also there is a whole “’knowledge economy’ surrounding the game –videos, blogs, wikis etc.” (http://blogs.hbr.org/bigshift/2010/01/a-better-way-to-manage-knowled.html )Any player can access these resources to learn more about the game.

White’s discussion about presence resonates with my own experience of WoW.  I am still at the early stages (having attained only level 6 at the time of writing this piece) – so I still do not feel that it is a safe environment – although I feel comfortable enough to go there on my own.  However, I am aware of the open chat channel and I have observed interactions among other players – so I am getting a feel for the community. I have explored some wikis that discuss my role of the priest and the best way to maximise play at different levels.( http://www.wowwiki.com/Starting_a_priest )

I can see that if I decided to continue to play WoW that I could get to a point to start interacting with other players and maybe eventually join a guild.  What I like is that I am not forced to immediately interact with others – that the game world is structured so that I can learn on my own the social norms of the world and that I am allowed to decide to interact in my own time.

Having time to explore the game world and learn about the role you have adopted leads to White’s second point about how WoW encourages the formation of multi-skilled teams.  White makes the point that educators should think of designing goals that require a multi-skilled team.  He feels that assigning roles is crucial to collaboration when it comes to learning.  Ideally he would like learners to be able to experiment with different roles as they can in WoW.

The way WoW manages presence and has quests that require a multi-skilled team encourages the formation of guilds (a community of practice).  I would like to design a game that leads to the development of a community of practice of qualitative data analysts. My goal is to design a game which is about what John Seely Brown calls ‘learning-to-be’ a qualitative analyst as opposed to ‘learning-about’ qualitative analysis.   I am not sure whether a MMOG is the type of game for what I want to do, however, I can see how I can extract the ways that WoW encourages the development of communities of practice.  I could see that the analysis task can be divided initially so that each analyst would be working on part of the data set (could be divided into types of data such as text, graphic, video, and audio). The initial tasks would be simple – organizing and classifying the data, moving on to commenting and reflecting on the data. This initial period would enable the analyst to familiarise themselves with their part of the data set and start to gain confidence in their ideas about the data.  However, to develop the analysis, they will have to work as a team and collectively decide how to code the data and eventually they will need to collectively construct their arguments about how the data addresses their research question.

References

Brown, J.S.  (2005) New Learning Environments for the 21^st Century, Forum for the Future of Higher Education Symposium. Aspen.

Hagel, J., Brown, J.S., and Davison, L. (2010) A Better Way to Manage Knowledge, in Harvard Business Review blog, 19 January 2010

Wenger, E. (2006) Communities of Practice – a brief introduction, http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm

White, D. (2010) Case Study 6: World of Warcraft in Whitton, N. Learning with Digital Games, Abingdon: Routledge.

 

I enjoyed playing World of Warcraft and EverQuest.  It is the first time I ever played an MMOG.  However, I was a little concerned with how easily I slipped into the culture of these games.  As I posted to the discussion board:

 

While playing with the group I heard one of our group members say that they did not like bashing wolves. I found that I didn't like doing it either but I had rationalised it because they were 'diseased' wolves and as such should be culled. However, in a later quest I had to collect the bandanas of some renegades and when I accepted the quest I realised that meant that I had to kill them. I was a bit uneasy about that but I had accepted the quest. I was killed at my first and second attempts but after being resurrected and figuring out (a la Gee) which weapon I should use, I was successful and forgot that I was 'killing' these renegades but just focussed on being successful in completing my task. However, when I went to get my reward and next quest, the quest-giver made a comment about how I didn't mind doing dirty work (or words to that effect). This jolted me out of my complacency and I realised that my character was a murderer. I had deliberately chosen the persona of a priest rather than a warrior to avoid being a 'bad' character. I was surprised at how easily I slipped into a murderer. I had an objective and became focussed on that objective - ignoring the means of achieving it.

I should add that I just came back from giving a paper at a conference in Berlin and spent the weekend exploring Berlin - which included visiting the Jewish museum and part of the Wall which is still standing. I was appalled at the stories of informers but my husband suggested that we did not know what pressures were put on informers. I mention this only because this experience is fresh in my memory and what I find interesting about WoW is how easy it is to be absorbed into a particular culture and a particular way of being. It made me wonder whether I could act more ethically in the WoW culture rather than passively just accepting quests.

 

 

Gee talks about three identities when playing a game – the virtual, the real and the projective. A player has some control in constructing their virtual identity in a game but the player’s choice is constrained because she has no control over the game world in which she has to play. So I chose Anavli to be a Priest in WoW so she could be a ‘good’ character.  However, the initial quests in WoW involve killing beasts, killing renegades etc.  My choice of my virtual identity was constrained by the game world in which my character has to live. Gee also talks about a projective identity using the term projective in two senses:

 

·         Players project their own values and desires onto their virtual identity (in my case Anavli)

·         Players see their virtual identity as a project in making – they need to take ownership of their creation (I have aspirations for the kind of character I want Anavli to become)

 

After creating my virtual identity, when I entered the game I was a passive player – accepting the quests and not questioning what I was doing. It was when the quest-giver made his remark that my real identity reawakened and questioned how my virtual identity was behaving.  At that point, I think that I began to be aware of my projective identity.  I wanted to take ownership of the kind of character I wanted Anavli to become but I was not sure of the constraints in the game world of WoW. 

 

 

Miguel Sicart has written on the ethics of computer games.  His view on ethics of computer games is linked to his definition of a game – ‘A game is not only it rules, its material aspect, but also its experience – the act of playing the game.’ (Sicart 2005:15) He takes the view that games players ‘are moral beings that evaluate their actions and the choices they make’ (Sicart 2005:15). However, he also argues that:

 

The way games are designed and how that design encourages players to make certain choices, is relevant for the understanding of the ethics of computer games. (Sicart 2009:17)

 

In his 2005 paper he uses an example from WoW.  WoW designers allowed player vs. player combat (pvp) in certain servers.  Because of the popularity of that feature, the designers decided to implement an honour system – where players got a considerable number of points for killing other players.  (Sicart points out that they did not at the same time implement a dishonour system.)  This design feature led to what the WoW community considered unethical behaviour such as corpse camping (i.e. waiting for other players to resurrect to kill them again when they were weak) and ganking (attacking players who cannot defend themselves).  The WoW community became divided – some liked the honour system, others disliked it so much that they stopped playing in the pvp servers.  The designers resolved this polarization by having certain areas that are designated in the map as battlegrounds. (Sicart was writing in 2005. I have been challenged to a few duels in WoW but I had the option to decline – so this is probably a further design feature refinement of the ethical issue the honour system raised.)

 

Sicart’s point is that both the player and the rules/fictional worlds are ethical entities which are both responsible for ‘the well being of the whole experience of playing a game’.  My concern was how passively I started to play the game – not reflecting on the experience. That may have been a feature of being totally unfamiliar with this kind of game and concentrating on learning about it.  I also wonder whether the quest-giver’s comment was a deliberate design feature to make me reflect on the nature of my virtual self.  It seems in Sicart’s WoW example, the game designers are responding to community issues.  If that is the case, then perhaps one could argue that WoW is an ethical game.  But I need to play more in it to discover whether that is the case.

 

Educators designing games need to think carefully of the culture they want to foster.  They need to take care that design features they create do not have negative ethical consequences. At the same time they need to see players as active moral individuals.  As I work with mature adults that is not a problem for me – those working with young children may need to think carefully of their level of maturity.  For both groups, individual and group reflection will help them resolve ethical issues.

References

 

Gee, James Paul (2003) What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy

 

Sicart, Miguel (2005) Game, Player, Ethics: A virtue ethics approach to computer games, International Review of Information Ethics, vol. 4 (12/2005) 13-18

 

Sicart, Miguel (2009) Ch1 Introduction in The Ethics of Computer Games. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.

 

I wanted to do my game review on a game that would be relevant to my professional work – supporting the analysis of qualitative data. Initially, I looked at what educational games existed in that area.  Most of the educational games I found were aimed at K-12 students.  The people I teach are post-graduates and professional researchers.  I explored what was available for higher education. I did not find any games about analyzing text or visual media. I did consider ‘Revolution’ which is MIT’s Education Arcade’s multi-player role-playing game set on the eve of the American revolution.   http://www.educationarcade.org/node/357 It is a conversion mod of the pc game Neverwinter Nights. It is aimed at high school students but I thought it offered interesting possibilities of exploring multiple realities and perspectives on a social phenomenon.  However, the player is not acting as an analyst, so the game was not really what I was looking for.

 

 

 

I then decided to look at entertainment games – to see if any of them could be adapted for my purpose.  I felt that detective games would be the closest to the analysis of unstructured data. It puts the player in the role of an analyst.  I played Sleuth. http://www.playsleuth.com/ While I enjoyed playing it, I felt it was not what I was looking for. While the detective is in the role of analyst, he/she does not analyse material. It is more of a strategy game. You choose your character and design your avatar.  Each character has different skills so you need to devise a strategy that take advantage of your given skills and allows you to build skills in other areas.  The game automatically analyses the information you are able to collect.

 

I also looked at And then there was none – based on an Agatha Christie novel.  http://www.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/andthentherewerenone/index (My hard drive became corrupted after I played this game – I have no idea if this was just a coincidence.)  Again, it was not quite what I was looking for.  It was more about searching and collecting clues rather than analysis.

 

 

 

 

However, In Memoriam, released in the States as Missing: Since January was more of what I was looking for. http://www.inmemoriam-thegame.com/gb/gam1.htm  It is an adventure game mystery that mixes the game world with real world internet searches.  It also involves the analysis of textual (including emails) and video material.  The player is themself in this game.  I like the mixture of game world and real world and I think this game is the closest to what I think can be used to help in developing skills in analysing qualitative or unstructured data.

 

 

 

I woke up the morning after I posted Team Sonic’s game and suddenly wondered – but is it a game?  We were so focused on getting it done within the time constraints and our own limited time that not only did we not work out our learning objectives in advance but we did not think through what elements of a game we were using. We just assumed it was a game.

It is only now, having tried to construct a game, that the reading we did early on as to what constitutes play and what constitutes a game is starting to come together for me.  Initially, before this course, I never thought what constituted a game was problematic.  After I did the initial reading, I started to realise the multi-faceted nature of games and the different cultural, historical, and theoretical perspectives on play.  But my understanding was in the abstract.  Having now tried to construct a game, I realise how slippery the whole idea of a game as – especially when trying to use it in education.  What is the difference between a learning activity and a game? Was it a game we constructed or a learning activity?

During my chat session with Anna and Fiona, I started to rattle through Whitton’s characteristics of games, listing the characteristics that I felt was lacking in our climate change game.

·         It is not competitive (but I added that I thought competition was not necessary in a game)

·         There is no winner – linked to their being no competition above

·         There is no indicator of progress during the game (no scoring etc.)

On the positive side I said:

·         The fantasy element made it game-like

·         And collaboration was done outside of Google Earth in the reflection piece which was to consolidate the learning that was achieved during exploring climate change on Earth – the fantasy element was carried over into the reflection piece to keep the continuity with Google Earth; in fact, while the reflection piece was outside of Google Earth and in a wiki, it was part of the game – as the reflection is the goal – the ‘report’ to be given to the Mission Chief

Anna asked if there was an element of challenge – and yes, there is a challenge in working out the clues which start easy but get progressively harder (to be honest we did not deliberately design it that way – it just worked out that way) but I think the reflection at the end is the most challenging piece.

There was a goal, as mentioned above, the report to the Mission Chief on evidence of climate change on Earth.

The game allowed exploration – players could explore and read the other Met Office reports which we did not specifically direct them to – they could play with the timeline – to see how climate change will impact some parts of the Earth before other parts, etc.

There is no interaction with other players during the Google Earth part of the game. However, the reflection piece was designed so there would be interaction in that a) players could see each other’s reports and b) each team, in the end, would have to compile a final report collaboratively.

The reactions to playing the game have been very positive. Everyone said they enjoyed it. And some people have been writing reflective reports on their experience.

So it does have characteristics of a game – despite my initial doubts.  I think the cohesiveness of the fantasy is what holds it together as a game. Nicola, in her report, said the anagram, while cute, should have been more meaningfully tied to the narrative we constructed in Google Earth.  I agree but given the time we had, we had to make a quick decision on the anagram.

  

I like Whitton’s view that games can be seen as a constructivist learning environment  - probably because a constructivist approach to learning fits well with the kind of teaching I am involved in – teaching and facilitating the qualitative data analysis process.  In fact, Whitton feels that games have greatest relevance to higher education learning in the development of high level transferable skills.  She defines these as:

·         Analysis

·         Critical evaluation

·         Autonomy

·         Team working

All the above are relevant to the research process and I hope to develop a game that can demystify the qualitative data analysis process. 

Whitton places a high value on collaborative learning. She quotes Wilson:

"a place where learners may work together and support each other as they use a variety of tools and information resources in their guided pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving activities" Wilson 1996:5

However, she stresses that the collaboration does not have to be part of the game but can be incorporated as part of the learning package for a particular set of learning outcomes.

Last year I took the Effective Course Design module and constructed a 10 week online course on qualitative analysis aimed at doctoral students or researchers new to qualitative analysis.  While each student on the course would come with their own research project, I constructed an initial collaboration activity where they were working together on the same material which was followed by individual AND cooperative work. They were developing analysis on their own individual project but the activities were structured so that on a regular basis they would report back their analysis-in-process to the small group they were assigned to.  And they would comment on each other’s work –as well as learn from each other.  I am thinking of designing a game for the collaborative activity part of this course where they are all working on the same material which either could replace the current collaborative activity in this course or could form part of new course aimed at those people who do not have a research project yet but who would like to learn about analyzing qualitative data. 

Whitton points out that while games are good at providing experiences and applying theories, they are not very good at providing meaningful reflection and abstract conceptualization.  For the kind of analysis game I would want to construct, reflection and conceptualization are very important.  Whitton specifies a number of additional activities that can support reflection and abstract conceptualization.  The ones I can see supporting developing an analysis include reflective diaries, small group work and production of artefacts such as presentations. 

Of course, I am jumping the gun here.  Whitton recommends starting with the learning objectives of a course and consider how you would normally meet them.  As I have already created an online course specifying my learning objectives, I intend to start with that.  At the moment, I think I can see how a game could fulfil the initial collaborative element of my learning objectives.  But I need to reflect on this further.  Then I can move into developing what Whitton calls a game concept specification:

·         Learning objectives

·         Genre

·         Brief description

·         Plot

·         Gaming activities

·         Constraints

·         Collaboration

·         Reflection

Reference

Whitton, N. (2010) Chapter 6, 'Designing a Digital Game for Learning'. In Learning with Digital Games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher education, London: Routledge.

 

I feel we have gone into constructing our learning activity rather back to front.  We were given Google Earth as a platform to design a game and my initial response was - ??? – what kind of a game can we construct using Google Earth? This was a bit exasperated by the fact that I had already a long weekend away booked so I knew I would have less time to think about this. Luckily the deadline was extended – thank you Fiona and Anna.

I already had Google Earth on my computer and I have played with it before – mainly exploring different parts of the world – tracking my daughter when she went to Chile, last year – that sort of thing. But I have never created anything in Google Earth – although I have read placeholders and information that other people had put on it.

Before going away I was quite focussed on the reading for the week (see previous blogs) and doing some preliminary research to find out a) what games have been developed using Google Earth, b) educational resources using Google Earth and c) technical information, online tutorials etc on creating placemarks etc.

I was surprised by the number of educational resources (as well as other types of resources) that has been created with Google Earth.  One of them was a resource created by the UK Met Office on the effect of climate change on the Earth – with a timeline from 1999-2099.  Helen had mentioned climate change as a possible theme for our game and this Met Office climate change ‘skin’ seemed a good platform to build a game.  My Sonic Group team members liked the idea.  I immediately focussed on learning the technical aspects of creating placemarks etc and so did my team members.  I wasn’t focussed on what the learning objectives of the game were. I had a hazy idea that the players would learn about climate change from traversing the information the Met Office had already put in the climate change Google Earth ‘skin’.  I started to think about how game players could interact by taking on different roles in different parts of the world – with the idea that problems in one part of the world would also have impacts on other parts of the world – but quickly realised that was too ambitious.  Wesley showed us how we could create a quiz in Google Earth and that seemed a more realistic approach. So we have divided up the work in constructing the quiz but haven’t set out our learning objectives yet – although I can see we can do that retrospectively.  Given the time constraints and the skills we had to learn, we had to do this backwards.

However, I think we needed to first understand the affordances of Google Earth and what was possible before we could think of what kind of learning outcome would be best achieved within Google Earth. And I think the process I described above was doing that. So maybe it was not really so backwards.  This game is a first exploratory attempt to see what is possible using Google Earth. And our climate change topic is something that does uses the affordances that Google Earth offers.

Malone makes a distinction between toys and tools. He says that: A good game should be easy to learn but difficult to master.

 

Whereas: A good tool should be both easy to learn and easy to master. 

tool users should be able to focus most of their attention on the uncertain goal, not on the use of the tool itself p. 66

 

This distinction is relevant for my work – training and consulting in CAQDAS – tools that support the analysis of qualitative data (such as ATLAS.ti, NVivo, MAXqda etc.)  All these tools are difficult to learn – and many people who start to use these tools are new to analyzing qualitative data – so they are learning two new big areas at once.  But even those people who are experienced qualitative analysts need to learn what the new affordances a software package can offer qualitative analysis.  These tools are both difficult to learn AND difficult to master – which could explain why they have been slow to be adopted, even though they have been around since the 1980s. 

 Malone rightly identifies that one issue facing the designers of these packages is:conflict between desire to have the system to be easy to learn for beginners and the desire to have it be powerful and flexible for experienced users To overcome the above dilemma, Malone suggests that designers build in a logical progression of increasingly complex microworlds for users of different levels of expertise. The trouble with applying this principle to CAQDAS tools is that you need to understand most of the features as they work together in an integrated way to support an analysis.  However, I can see that in designing a game to teach qualitative analysis (as opposed to tool use), you could build in levels that correspond to the analysis process and you could use the CAQDAS software tools as an environment to play the game. And in an indirect way you would be teaching the tool use at the same time.Need to think more on this

I just spent a couple of hours yesterday in Quest Atlantis (in the plague village - which is teaching about persuasive writing). I was totally immersed in this world and didn't notice the time go by. Barab et al talk about their learning engagement theory which they developed in QA - integrating learning, playing and helping in the context of social issues in an aesthetically-rich dramatic play. The plague story does this with students taking on the role of an investigative journalist trying to find evidence to persuade the community to either support or not Dr Frank(instein)'s experiment to find a cure for the plague. The story line is engaging (satisfying Malone's idea of fantasy and curiosity and uncertain outcome). QA seems to emphasize social responsibility as well - so there are moral issues interwoven in the story. I haven't finished all the activities but I think the storyline will let you argue both sides of the argument although there are nudges to re-consider your argument as you gather more evidence - but you only are suppose to use evidence that supports your argument (but I haven't finished it yet - so I don't know if there is scope to address counter-evidence in a way that supports your argument.)

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.