We have been given a couple of research papers for critically evaluation. One of them is by Dunleavy et al (2007) which looks at the "value addedness" of the one child per laptop (OLPC) project. What struck me here is that there are similarities between the OLPC initiaive and that of our partly JISC funded project, iBorrow. Whilst the OLPC project is ensuring that there is a "laptop per child" and iBorrow is about "borrowing a laptop" - the similarities here are one of transformation (or at least potentially).

Our students have a choice of using one of the 200 netbook devices or one of the 120 fixed desktop PCs - which ones are they drawn to and under what circumstances? They have relatively free reign in a large learning space (incorporating library, cafes and student services) the size of a football pitch across three floors - which means they have a choice as to where to work, learn and play with these netbooks - and again, which zones are they drawn to and under what circumstances?

Which leads us to another set of interesting questions:

• What kind of affordances do these devices bring?
• Are they indeed "value added" or something else?
• Does the combination of group work and mobile devices differ from that of group work and fixed devices?
• Does an "underworld" of virtualised peer support exist in these groupings?

I have a lot to think about and mull over before I finally hand in my project proposal in April 2010 - the trick here is to keep the research question(s) tightly focused.

If you are interesting in delving deeper into the OLPC project, Nicholas Negroponte, author of "Being Digital", founder of MIT Media Labs and founder of the OLPC initiative provides a nice summary of what the initiative is and the some of the issues of getting the project off the ground. James O'Hagan's blog "1 Laptop : 1 Student" offers some "stories" and case studies taken from practitioners of the initiatives.

References

Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S. & Heinecke, W.F. (2007). "What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning?". Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, pp. 440-452.

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.

 

  

My University is involved in phase two of JISC's Institutional Innovation Programme:

"This programme represents a £13.08m investment aimed at supporting existing institutional strategies by providing solutions to institution-wide problems, based upon proven practices, technologies, standards and services. The solutions will act as exemplars to other institutions by demonstrating innovation and good practice, and building knowledge and experience, which can be shared across institutions."

One of those projects is the Academic Social Networking project which is being developed by the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies (CARET) at the University of Cambridge. The project itself "aims to bring some of the affordances of consumer social networks to teaching and learning".

What is interesting to me, and possibly to other students on the research methods module is that CARET collaborated with Flow Interactive, an external company, to investigate whether commercial user-centric design (UCD) techniques could be transferable and be used within a Higher Education context.

As the research team suggest, user-centric design is different because:

"...it explicitly, constructively and actively includes users in the design process from a very early stage."

One of the key features of their particular methodology is the notion of "design personas" and how it enabled them to:

"...identified trends or patterns in user behaviours, expectations and motivations, through conducting a combination of diary studies and interviews, and how this formed the basis of our personas. Having these personas enabled us to focus the design effort on supporting user goals. Also, where traditionally a designer might have lists and lists of requirements, personas allow one to prioritize these requirements to the degree these personas would find them important, offering more clarity."

Moreover, the research team at CARET have published their UCD methodology into a rather useful and compelling handbook for us lucky reseachers to peruse and may even offer a new approach to conducting research with our key stakeholders.

I have been thinking more about my intended research project as well as bouncing ideas and talking to colleagues about it as well. One of the recurring themes was a person or a groups relationship to and between space (physical, virtual or both?). These relationships could occur between:

• Student to Student
• Student to Peer Group
• Student to Tutor
• Peer Group to Peer Group
• Peer Group to Tutor

It reminded me of some journal articles that I read as part of my "Space, Place and Technology" wiki articles for the "Psychological and Social Contexts of e-Learning" module. Specifically, this regards Nova (2005, p. 119) who proposes that when "dealing with the concept of space in collective situations", it should be considered through the lens of a number of dimensions:

• Person to Person
• Person to Artefact
• Person to Place
• Space, Place and Activity
• Space and Artefacts
• Space and Time

The "Space, Place and Technology" wiki articles are now converted into an "as is" electronic paper version on Issuu, if you wish to find out more about these dimensions. We can represent these dimension using the following illustration.

What we are looking at are fixed physical spaces are depicted as solid circles whereas transient physical spaces are denoted with dashed circles. Each circle is inhabited by people with some form of information and communication device like a desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone or PDA; also present are a number of "artefacts" represented by the orange star and the green diamond - these "artefacts" could be a chair, table, books, or Interactive White Boards. As depicted in the diagram, some "spaces" can overlap and be shared. Each information and communication device is connected to one or more virtual spaces as depicted by the computer servers inside a blue dashed cloud formation. These virtual spaces could be blogs, wikis, virtual environments, web pages and such like.

In terms of thinking about methodology, some ethnographic approach could be considered, but as Cousin (2009, p. 109) warns us:

"At first sight, it might seem that anyone can do ethnography but doing it well requires familiarity with a theoretical field, a set of research skills and perhaps, above all, ... an 'enlightened eye'"

Cousin (ibid) goes to say that "ethnography is not so much about studying people as learning from them". In their joint Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) in Creativity project called inQbate, the Universities of Sussex and Brighton have created "two creativity zones" which offers "exciting opportunities for students to work in spaces that foster collaborative, self-directed and experiential learning".

The methodology for capturing how students reacted to and interacted within the space and with eachother was to use Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). This is a relatively recent qualitative approach developed specifically within psychology by Jonathan A. Smith, a Professor of Psychology at Birkbeck, University of London. IPA concerns itself by:

"...trying to understand lived experience and with how participants themselves make sense of their experiences. Therefore it is centrally concerned with the meanings which those experiences hold for the participants."

I am not really considering IPA but it does demonstrate some of the deep and rich approaches to data collection and analysis. What has caught my eye, however, is something called Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) which is a theory about the link between attitudes and behaviour. TPB is a quantitative approach developed by Icek Ajzen, a Professor of Psychology at Amherst, University of Massachusetts. It was Siragusa & Dixon (2009) paper for the Ascilite 2009 conference where they were using questionnaire items related to components of the TPB to determine students’ attitudes and planned use of ICT-based instruction. Like any methodology, TPB has its' advocates and detractors.

It has been suggested to me that I could develop a case study. But in the meantime, I think I will look into TPB to see if it has any real value.

References

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th Edition). New York, London: Routledge.

Cousin, G. (2009). Researching Learning in Higher Education. New York, London: Routledge.

Norton, L.S. (2009). Action Research in Teaching & Learning. New York, London: Routledge.

Nova, N. (2005). "A Review of How Space Affords Socio-Cognitive Processes during Collaboration". PsychNology Journal, 3(2): 118-148.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd Edition). Malden, MA; Oxford; Carlton, Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.

Siragusa, L. & Dixon, K.C. (2009). "Theory of planned behaviour: Higher education students'
attitudes towards ICT-based learning interactions". In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/siragusa.pdf [Accessed 02.02.2010].

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.

So here we are at last, the sixth and final module that is "research methods". I know that I would like to do my dissertation on learning spaces as my institution has just opened it's doors to a new Library and Student Services centre called Augustine House. If you want a feel for the place, there's an interactive floorplan that you can view and there is also a special Flickr set (compare these against the previous library provision). Incidently, anyone wanting to look at different examples of learning spaces that are situated across the UK can view JISC Infonet's Flickr pages.

JISC (2006) informs us that learning spaces:

"...should be able to motivate learners and promote learning as an activity, support collaborative as well as formal practice, provide a personalised and inclusive environment, and be flexible in the face of changing needs." (p. 3)

However, as the JELS (2009) report found out, there is very little by way of evaluating the effectiveness of learning spaces and a fair bit of research would be needed to begin to understand what is going on. Temple (2007), in his literature review, is particularly scathing on how little we understand such spaces:

"...if the curriculum in higher education is a set of experiences, that a student inhabits, experiences that that arise from a student’s interaction with his or her ‘learning environment’, then any attempt to trace the influence of one particular thread of experience may well be doomed..." (p. 69)

So, over the last 18 months I have been involved in a part JISC-funded project that is part of their Institutional Innovation Programme, which:

"...represents a £13.08m investment aimed at supporting existing institutional strategies by providing solutions to institution-wide problems, based upon proven practices, technologies, standards and services. The solutions will act as exemplars to other institutions by demonstrating innovation and good practice, and building knowledge and experience, which can be shared across institutions."

Our project, which we called iBorrow, has deployed 200 location-aware (re: wireless) netbooks within Augustine House which students and staff can "borrow" just by taking them out of the recharging cabinets as if they were picking up a book from off a shelf. One of the many things that we want to see is if it can provide a large-scale demonstration of how thin-client notebooks with location-aware technology can enable us to not only provide "no fuss" access to a full range of software and learning resources but also effectively manage the configuration of the facilities within the large flexible learning spaces of Augustine House.

As part of my preparation and understanding of learning spaces, I have managed to fill three A4 box folders of papers on the subject as well as looking at the notions of "place" and "space" under the auspices of environmental psychology. To help me make sense of all of this information, I have devised a mind map (click on the image below to enlarge) that covers a large number of themes (and I suspect that I have only scratched the surface).

References

JELS. (2009). A Study of Effective Evaluation Models and Practices for Technology Supported Physical Learning Spaces. Bristol: JISC. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/projects/learningspaces08.aspx [Accessed 21 January 2010].

JISC. (2006). Designing Spaces For Effective Learning - A Guide To 21st Century Learning Space Design. Bristol: JISC. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/programmerelated/2006/pub_spaces.aspx [Accessed 21 January 2010].

Temple, P. (2007). Learning Spaces for the 21st Century: A review of the literature. York: The Higher Education Academy. Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/projects/detail/lr_2007_temple [Accessed 21 January 2010].

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.