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 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.

I experienced a combination of compulsion and frustration playing Pacman, Donkey Kong, and Frogger.  The compulsion was that I kept going – replaying the game, thinking this time I will get through to the next level.  Frustration was when I nearly made it but not quite.  I also experienced a kind of recklessness when I was close to completing a level – just rushing in to finish it instead of calming down and taking my time to finish.  There is definitely a physiological response – I found myself holding my breath, feeling slightly anxious and the adrenalin pumping around my body.  It was totally immersive but I partly resented this immersiveness.  The resentment is due to feeling that I was ‘wasting my time’ playing these games – although having to experience them for the course did give them a legitimacy for me. 

Newman looks at why do players play. He  cites Rouse’s key motivations: challenge, immersion and the fact that players expect to do, not watch.  Certainly, I have experienced the immersion.  It is interesting what Newman (2004) says about ‘challenge’ – that players expect to lose.  Maybe that is why I find them so frustrating – I don’t expect to lose (but I keep losing).  The pleasure he claims is through replaying and practicing until the performance gets better.  For me these platform games are too simple – in that I find the repetition too boring. Maybe I would enjoy it more if the rewards were more ‘real’ – rather than just getting to the next level.  Although I expect I would get elated if I ever make it to the next level.

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

“Mum, you’re not playing a game!”, my eighteen year old daughter exclaimed when she suddenly came into my study.  I quickly showed her my Digital Game-based Learning course book and explained that it was a module for my MSc in E-Learning course.  I think that sums up my starting point with games – playing games is not something associated with me and I am embarrassed to be caught playing a game!  

I was playing PacMan and it was the first time I played that game.  I was successful in getting to Level 2 at my first attempt but I did not realise that when I ate a large sphere and the ghosts turned blue that I could try to ‘eat’ them to earn extra points. I only learned that (and the fact that those things were ghosts) by later googling to find out more about the game. [Note: My getting to stage 2 at my first go was just beginners luck. I found it more difficult subsequently!]

I had a harder time with Donkey Kong.  The up key did not appear to work when I tried to make the man climb the ladder so I decided that I would have to make a number of points jumping over barrels before I could make it to the next level. But that did not seem to work. I got very frustrated and would have given up if I were not on the course. So again I googled ‘Donkey Kong pattern’ and gathered that the man could go up the ladder.  I realised that he had to be positioned exactly in front of the ladder in order to go up it.

Having done some of the initial reading about the definitions of digital or videogames, I realise that I have played some before. In particular, I have played minesweeper on my phone as well as brick???.  And I have played solitaire on my laptop.  I never thought of them as digital games – mainly because I didn’t play with anyone else – they were solitaire games. (And yes, I just used the word ‘game’.)  But I did not go out of my way to get those games – they came with my phone/laptop and I only played them when I was in transit when I was tired of reading.  But I enjoyed playing them (as long as no one I knew saw me playing them!).

 

Well week 1 is over and we’re into week 2 and the first reflection is how I’ve failed to keep the planned blog, which I know will help me with the studying (I used one in my first module and not in the second and noticed the difference).   I could link this to work being really busy too but that’s just me making excuses so here’s an attempt at encapsulating the starting points for my thinking.

• The way in which the course is structured to give us (as students) ownership of both content and direction of the course – and what this means we have to recognise as our responsibilities to ensure a successful programme
  • And to a lesser extent the tutor’s role in supporting/facilitating this work
• The way in which technology is portrayed in films and books and how this might influence the way in which we perceive it in reality
  • Do we see truths in the films or do we question and disagree with them?
  • What are the implications of films portraying the negative/challenging sides of the relationship between humans and technology?
• Why we chose to adopt particular technologies
  • What of our choice is linked to design?
  • How are we influenced by our peers?
  • How is Apple influencing the spectrum of early adopters? How do their design choices represent a consideration of the market?
• The way in which our use of social media develops
  • Rise and fall of facebook
  • Does the use of social software ebb and flow – and if so what’s causing the tide to change? Is it all just linked to popularity and fashion or is there something more fundamentally linked to function?

Welcome to a new academic year, and to the holyroodpark.net blog space, one of the core environments for the MSc in E-learning! Please don't hesitate to get in touch with Jen Ross, the programme technical co-ordinator, if you have any questions or need any help getting set up.

 

Her contact details are in the technologies handbook.

i hope this links up ok

linking from hp

During the wiki weeks I thought I would first take a look at the approach I was grappling most with - social critical and reading Shor's education is politics article - I found it very interesting due to the many parallels with this modules approach....

It seems our tutors are quite the libertines and problem posers! - and it all lies in the chat.......

here are the connections I could relate to:

' a Freirean pedagogy tries to develop a student centred dialogue'

Some values describing the 'Freirean pedagogy':

Participatory - learning process interactive and co-operative so that students do a lot of discussing and writing instead of listening to teacher talk

Situated - course material situated in student thought begining from their words and understanding of material

Critical - discussion encourages self reflection, how we know what we know, and quality of learning process -(why do we do what we do - what personal filters or biais or previous experience guides the way we are (holistically or at any one point in time), choices we make or how we act, react and interact - a lot of interpersonal, communication, rapport and building relatonship skills in the work place also covers this - for a commercial gain however rather than a socially driven libertine reason!)

Democratic - classroom discourse is mutually constructed between teacher and student - students have equal speaking rights in the dialog

Dialogic - basic format of class is dialog around problems posed by student and teacher. Teacher initiates process and guides it into deeper phases. Teacher invites students to take ownership of learning

Desocialisation - dialog desocialises students from passivity in classroom and challenges their learned authority-dependence and desocialises teacher from domineering teacher-talk socialised into - instead they are problem posers and dialogue leaders

.........

Affective - problem posing and dialogic method includes a range of emotions from humour to compassion to indignation - and we have seen many of these emotions already within our own discourse

Shor, I. (1993). Education is politics: Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy. In Paulo Freire: a critical encounter. P. McLaren and P. Leonard (Eds.). (London, Routledge): pp. 25-35

It all started with rats in space but led to the emergence of natural born cyborgs, at least in Clark's eyes (2003).

I have just finished reading his article 'Cyborgs Unplugged' where a Cyborg, acronym for Cybernetic Organism or Cybernetically Controlled Organism, is described as being an 'entity' which captures the 'notion of human-machine merging' or 'human-machine symbiosis'.

Clark's perspective is that these sort of man-machine link ups exist already without the need for puncture, surgery and implants and that they evolve with such a natural form of integration that most happen invisibly and beneath our level of conscious awareness.

This has generated a little debate on our discussion board about machines which can find cars in car-parks and 'man' and 'specticles' working together to 'extend the brain' - it certainly leads to an interesting perspective and one which I feel we seem more attune with 'socially' or in 'everyday digital life' than 'educationally' at present.

Clark already mentions 'Amazon' (or similar services) and how it tracks an individual's reading habits... 'other people who bought the same book you are looking at have also bought the following.....'

and 'Ebay' like services which track an individual's purchasing habits..... 'you might also be interested in......' or 'do you want to see what other things the seller is selling...'

IPODs and mobile phones allow you to take photos, download personalised music and video choices and transfer treasured possesions like this via blue tooth technology (which I have not quite mastered yet but my kids have!) between friends.

We also see this man-machine integration with FACEBOOK.

Have you noticed the flags for 'mutual friends'? The ones you have 'in common' with those you have listed as friends. Or have you noticed the adverts appearing when you log in? I have skiing as an interest in my profile and I get skiing holidays advertised...... ummmmmm!

At work, the portal I log into recognises my login as staff not student and I get access to information students don't see whilst they get access to information on the courses/modules they are registered on and the faculty they reside in. We all get information on our own library borrowing accounts and records.

I can set up alerts on databases to help me keep track of new material published on areas that interest me or subscribe to RSS feeds to help me keep track of new posts to blogs or websites of interest.

Also cookies on machines also act in the same way I guess, shortening processes or recognising you when you login and therefore you do not have to remember your login .......

As Clark says....

'The more closely the smart world becomes tailored to an individual's specific needs, habits and preferences the harder it will become to tell where a person stops and this tailor-made, co-evolving smart world begins.'

This too, I think will be invisible... not so much for others to see, but how we see ourselves..........

A member of our discussion board recently flagged that they do not like changing computer - as the keyboard and set ups are often different. I don't like it because my cookies are not present or my favourites to hand (unless you use delicious). These are 'intimate' feelings and highlight perhaps the 'functioning of the smart world in intimate harmony with the biological brain' that Clark (2003) is talking about?

Bringing it back educationally - spotted the following.... although this appendage is not terribly invisible......... :~) 'Robodoc'

 

Clark, A. (2003) Natural born cyborgs: minds, technologies and the future of human intelligence, Oxford: OUP chapter 1, 'Cyborgs unplugged' pp.13-34.

Robodoc. http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/ [accessed November 2008]