Photo Credit: tjmwatson (under CC)

As mentioned in my last post, as a child, I was a huge fan of the Commodore 64. About four years ago, I decided to purchase an old C64 on eBay and relive my youth (not sure what happened to my original?). The C64 was released in August 1982. It was the best selling model of the 1980’s. It had a huge 64KB of RAM and a graphics chip with 16 colours! It really was state of the art. My parent’s bought a C64, in 1986, with the intention of using it to manage farm accounts. This was not to be so. It took my Father 4 hours to program the machine to play ‘Ba Ba Black Sheep’, let alone, create, calculate, manage and save any accounts. With so many failed attempts he gave up and passed the machine onto my brother and I. I don’t actually know anyone who used the C64 for anything other than gaming. This is where my passion for all things ICT initially began. I would spend hours working out how to programme the C64 to do very simple (and at the time, fascinating tasks) I managed to play small monophonic tunes, draw very basic pictures and of course there was the game playing. I find it incredible to think that 20 years later I am now able to do the same tasks and much more from my mobile phone! With regards to gaming I was an avid user. With 16 colours the C64 games were just fantastic! ‘Hungary Horace’, ‘Dizzy’, ‘Wheelies’ and ‘Road Blasters’ to name a few (others not the most PC in this day and age). It gives me a very nostalgic, yet strange, feeling when I set up this piece of computing history. Seeing the famous blue C64 screen, holding the ‘Run/Stop’ and 'shift' buttons simultaneously, waiting in anticipation for the game to load; will it load or willit come up with ‘system error’?

C64 Interface

 Hungry Horace Screeshot: Level 1

Photo credits: tjmwatson (under CC)

When I bought the computer some four years ago, I asked for my purchase to be delivered to the school where I was teaching. I couldn’t resist setting it up and letting my pupils see my new toy. At the time, my Intermediate 1 Biology class were working on the subject of ‘Alcohol and Its Effects’. Under the umbrella of this subtopic is ‘Reaction Time’. What better a way to demonstrate reaction time than with a good old 10 minute game of ‘Crazy Cars’ (This is a game where you have to race around a circuit avoiding other cars and potential hazards, ideal for testing reaction time!). After overcoming the basic graphics (one boy asking me, ‘but where is the car?’) the pupils surprisingly got really into the game. They were also very inquisitive as to how the machine worked (i.e. loading of cassettes and the general setup). You can now play many of the C64 games on the iPhone ,however nothing beats the real thing ;-)

The Commodore 64, such a fabulous computer of the past, they have even commissioned a classical orchestra to play the music from the games!

 Pac-Man Screenshot (iPad) Photo Credit: tjmwatson (under CC)

Pac Man was a game that I was first introduced to as a child in the late 1980s. I can't remember which computer I played the game on, but Amstrad springs to mind. The Pac-Man movements are controlled by the game player. The object of Pac-Man is to eat as many Pac-dots as you can without getting eaten by the different colored ghosts that roam around the pac maze. If you eat a large Pac-dot it will turn all the ghosts blue. When the ghosts are blue, you (Pac-Man) can in turn eat them. Fruit also appears at random points in the maze. If you eat these fruits you will gain more points.

For the purpose of the course, I downloaded Pac-Man "lite" (the free version) for my iPad.

I think this is a great little game for testing reaction time and small scale problem solving. However in terms of learning, I am not sure exactly what the player *is* learning? I guess there is a certain amount of physical finger coordination to be learned and perhaps the Thinking Correctly Under Pressure (TCUP) theory, but how could this be applied in another context? Perhaps when playing sport and choosing your tactics?

As Greenfield (1984) states video games are "merely sensory motor games of hand-eye coordination"; quite a sweeping statement but applicable in the context of Pac-Man and many of the basic games of the era. Other similar games of the 1980s that spring to mind Hungry Horrace (the first computer game I owned for the Commodore 64) and the Dizzy Game series (more in another post)

How things have changed with touch-screen technology and augmented reality just some of the things that I am looking forward to investigating further during this course :-)

Photo Credit: tjmwatson (Under CC)

Hello fellow students and tutors!

I thought I would use my first post to (re) introduce myself. Sorry if you have already read my introduction on the discussion board!

The Games Based Learning module is my fourth course. I am also studying the Research Methods course this semester. After these modules I am hoping to go on to the dissertation. I was a teacher of Biology and Science for 7 years. For the last three years I have worked in project management (ICT classroom based initiatives and VLEs). My current role is elearning community facilitator for the Scottish Traveller Education Programme (STEP). My current project is called eLearning and Traveller Education Scotland (eLATES) I am supporting, coordinating and managing the deployment of Glow (the Scottish Schools Digital Network and VLE) for mobile and Travelling Children. I would class myself as a *casual* gamer. As a child I was a huge fan of the Commodore 64 computer. More recently I was involved in a number of games based learning trials in the Primary Classroom (2008). These included the use of Sony PSPs as tools for learning and also using Desktop PC software such as Media Stage and CrazyTalk.

I am looking forward to exploring the potential that digital games have to enhance learning experiences for all ages and sharing practice, knowledge and experiences with others on the course :-)

More information about my online life can be found on my website: www.tessawatson.com

Please feel free to leave me and comments or questions (positive or negative!)... They are what makes blogging so worth while :-)

Experiential learning by means of playing games either in real life with other participants or virtually in an online gaming environment according to Gee (1) draws on the experience, beliefs and moral values of the player’s real world identity. In turn the player gains knowledge by experimenting safely in a learning environment, knowledge which then blends into and transforms his real identity that as a result promotes change to a new identity. The centre of learning therefore is based on own subjective experience and it is experience that guides what the person learns and when it is learned according to David Kolb (2). The desired outcome is a transfer of emotions, notions, capabilities that derive from a safe learning experience where the learner has had an active part in the evolution of the learning environment and the events that have lead to the learning experience.  Thiagi (3) and many other use games regularly as a means to destructure and restructure learning.

Unlike Boellsdorf virtual identities in SL Gee’s players enter a set framework given by the game design with a choice of “unique backgrounds” and features. The creation of the virtual identity is framed by design and not as in SL a free choice and construction of the person. Consequently a game seems to be a more structured way of learning than an identity in a SL environment. Throughout the game the decisions made and the development of the game add to and develop the gamer’s virtual identity as foreseen by the game design, whereas in SL the rules and rewards are defined by the social conventions created and implemented by each individual group (assuming that we don’t enter a preset domain but that we meet on ‘neutral’ grounds’). The choices made according to Gee are filtered by a projected identity that acts an intermediary between the real and the virtual identity. While in both cases the environment provides anonymity the mandatory gap between the virtual and the real world Boellsdorf stressed as being foundational in Gee’s version seems to be bridged by the projected identity that serves as a ‘transmitter’ or ‘synapsis’ between both worlds.  In my previous post I pointed out that in my view even in SL there is a reciprocal ‘contamination’ between the experiences in the real and the virtual world. Gee’s view on using games to transfer and enhance learning seems to confirm this impression. The express purpose for playing online in Gee is to learn. So why and how can playing be an effective learning tool?

Experiential learning expert David Kolb proposes a model of learning cycle with four learning styles: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active, experimentation, which all engage the learner at some stage of the game. Kolb suggests that a learner enters the game with his own personal style and moves along the cycle during the game experiencing and interacting with all four styles. By playing the game the person is actively involved in the choices and decisions, thinks before and after about the alternative choices and their consequences, is able to take the experience out of context and to a meta level of understanding where it will enhance what the person already knows and will support with ‘tangible’ activities that promote learning-by-doing.

http://holyroodpark.net/danielag/files/-1/1091/diagramm0004.jpg

Learning cycle

Source: http://weatherhead.case.edu/executive-education/programs/subjects/e

To have a successful learning transfer Gee sees three basic requirements that need to be fulfilled:

1-     The learner must be enticed to try (…)

2-     The learner must be enticed to put in lots of effort even if he or she begins with little motivation to do so

3-     The learner must achieve some meaningful success (…)

How can that be achieved? Gee admits that video games are good for some type of learners, so that would confirm Kolb’s different learning styles and different approaches to learning. How can games be used effectively in education, higher, professional or any other education to provide an interesting entry point for all learners?

Based on my experience as an experiential outdoor facilitator games have first to be designed carefully and then briefed and de-briefed well. The briefing serves to set down the framework, similar to a game design in an online environment with its basic rules, choices, characters and roles. The de-briefing serves to transfer the findings of the game (the virtual world and the identity the learner assumed there) into the real world, they need to answer to the question of “how can I apply this in my daily life/work?” and serve as a bridge between both worlds and both identities.

Briefing and debriefing should aim at enticing the learner to try, to offer a safe environment to learn detached from his real life and the identity he or she is required to have in a specific semiotic domain. A feeling of safety is important as well as willingness to commit which might be achieved by showing first that there are no repercussions in real life and second ‘what is in for me/him/her’ or expressed differently “what will I get out of it?, what will my success look like?” And it must be clear that success is closely related to how much effort is put in the task. It should be clear to the learner that the responsibility for success and reward are in his own hands.

Is that enough to motivate people to risk doing something which might make them look stupid, inept or clumsy? Indeed, this is a major obstacle in the real experiential world which requires a lot of ‘pedagogical care’ (Barnett, 2007) or as Gee phrases it, to learn actively and critically. Personally I quite like the idea of identities as an ongoing development program where knowledge is used as a catalyst for developing a new identity and to form bridges from the one’s old identity to the new one. The virtual world has the advantage of offering anonymity which provides a feeling of safety that in turn reduces risk and increases the risk readiness for the learner to allow himself to get involved in the game. How can we ensure that the real world identity will profit from the virtual world identity?

 (1)   James Paul Gee, (2004) “Learning and Identity: what does it mean to be a half-elf?” from What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy”, pp51-71, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

(2)   David Kolb, Learning from Experience, http://www.learningfromexperience.com/ accessed on 17^th October 2010

(3) http://www.thiagi.com/

After our Second Life Session I found myself comparing my perceptions of what had happened in that hour with the interaction during our Twitter and Skypechat tutorial. While the basic text-based exchange is common to all three the addition of visual information, such as seeing a person type on the keyboard, has had a regulatory effect on the communication flow. Our exchanges were more structured and there was a certain flow in the development of the discussion, which allowed to express and elaborate on a thought while it still was on the radar of all.

The impression of having an embodied entity in a dedicated environment contributed to my perception of a more ‘personal’ interaction between the various members of the course. It was interesting to see that the real life behaviours, such not more than two people sitting on a bench or keeping a certain distance to each other was the same in this virtual environment.

One aspect that distinguished us from other users seems to be that the main attractiveness for SL, its anonymity and freedom of behaviour and role choice, is not our main goal. We still seem to struggle with the anonymity of our bodily selves.

From a learning and teaching perspective I can see and think of a number of potential uses for SL, if the participants will buy into the technology part of it. I am still disoriented by the level of complexity of SL and if I were to use it, I would need more confidence and experience to support my learners in this environment. For me SL is not intuitive enough for a quick spin in and out of it.

Skypechatting was really interesting last night. Fast, fun and a little unstructured it felt like being in a classroom, where everyone finally gets a chance to talk and being listened to and answered immediately. By skyping the perceived isolation and asynchronous communication and interaction was finally broken and it felt like a community.

As a teaching tool I would see it as an opportunity to let people vent their ideas, emotions and opinions in a collaborative environment with immediate response. It could also serve as a channel to collect ideas, make provocative statements and brainstorm on them. If we compare it to a real classroom, it is more like a moment of liberation, where everyone has a voice that is heard and reacted to in real time.

The risk is that at the end there is no real listening and it is a little hard to follow the flow and the understanding of each other. On the other hand coming up with many different ideas concurrently it is an excellent stepping stone for further discussion and thought.