Adding to certain valid points on the discussion board, I am also thinking that Louise’s (the tutor’s) reaction was really over-the-top. Honestly, since she is well able to deal with exactly the same situation face-to-face, why now shouldn’t she just say calmly sth like “I’m sorry but this really is your task to find out. I can’t help you anymore.” Job done. bob's your uncle. No hard feelings.

Leaving the tutor's reaction aside, the likely truth is that once such ‘advice’ is given to a student, such ‘invitations’ for help will never cease...

I must revisit my initial idea of peer-feedback, after some very constructive critical comments on the discussion board. Indeed, the ‘thumbs up and down’ idea could be subject to abuse with colleagues giving each other more positive notes than to other members of the board.

But I will still maintain that some peer-feedback would be of use. One focusing only on positive feedback, where the ready-given responses to feeds/entries could be as such:

“How would you rate the above entry in terms of its relevance to the discussion topic?

·        OK

·        Very relevant/useful

I am beginning to realize the problem a lot of people have with online marking, responses or criticism is that, unlike spoken words given here and now, the online feedback stays there permanently. We don’t want to hear of our flaws (in deeds or in thinking), and if we already do, then the right course of action is to reflect and move on. Negative online feedback is a painful remainder that on that particular occasion we were wrong.

Week one of 'Introduction to digital environments for learning' is drawing to a close.  An interesting activity, and in many ways challenging as the different student types discussed had a lot in common, so it wasn't always easy to come up with something new.

Having found time to finish reading 'e-tivities' by Gilly Salmon this morning, I find that the last few pages of the book to be relevant to this exercise.  The book is divided in to two similar length parts, starting with an introduction to e-tivites and makes use of Gillys five-stage framework.  Part two concentrates on resources for practitioners and is divided down in to a number of digestable sections, each a couple of pages in length.  Many of the sections  look at issues raised in the course discussions such as: 'Promoting collaborative groups', 'on line emotions' and 'Patterns of participation'. The patterns of participation section is particularly relevant as it discusses the characteristics of most (if not all) of those partisipants studied, alongside a number of others that give a fuller picture of the social mechanics of discussion boards.

I found the book a challenging read so it has taken some time for me to complete it.  However the resources section makes this a worthwhile read for anyone looking at online learning from any perspective.

Salmon, G. (2002) e-tivities (the key to online learning). Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.

Having looked over all the case studies for week one, I find they appear to have more in common than not.  There is a general consensus that preparing the students in advance is key, to this I add that the staff need to be prepared well too.

It can be difficult to find somthing original to say once the threads have got underway, I guess this leads to some original thinking at times.

The big day has arrived, so I have had a go at the week one activities.  There are only a few contributions so far, so I have dived in in the hope that I am on the right track and that it will encourage others to dive in too.  The pace of contribution will probably quicken towards the end of the week as everyone consciously tries not to be identified with any of the characters in the case study!

I tried to buy an ebook reader today but Waterstones were out of stock of the model I chose, the assistant told me they had two on the stock system but they were both faulty customer returns...  I hope such a device will make referring to articles easier as I won't have to flick from session to session on the computer.

Well, I guess this is where it all begins.  I am looking forward to being on the receiving end of education for a change. 

Not a totally good day of e-teaching, a faulty projector and downloaded youtube videos that decided not to play.

Based on the topic of Cyberspace and the Concept of Democracy (Wrote by Fred Evans), An considerable paragraph shows at below:

"Many commentators acknowledge that cyberspace and the internet have a "dark side" ...... the technocrat control, panoticism or pervasive surveillance by the government or by corporations and escapism"

The above statement obviously described the China's internet circumstance. The example is that most of famous online companies have banned in China, such as  Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Youtube. So people can not use these website in China, because of these websites includes some speeches or imformations which include positive influences to Chinese government. The government is the unique party in the China, so the party does not want to listen any bad words about it and the party chose escapism, which avioid to listen a positive information or new vioices make by people dont like them, but these people are still exist. In this year's July, the world's biggest research engine company Google, left the Chinese market, because Chinese government try to "technocrat control" in Google's company, so Google believe that they need to be democracy, because their service aim is to give people speech of freedom and voices and identity, as Fred Evans wrote in his topic "our voice is our identity", so Goole insisted to service "voices" to the Chinese people, finally, they have to leave the Chinese market by the government's power.

However, I believe that China's democracy of internet could be change in the future, because the country is still a developing country, the mainly things of the country is to increase the economic, maybe after few years, when China become to the developed country, the democracy of people and internet could be released naturally. 

In the article Assessing the global accessibility of the Internet, digital divide is caused by different level of computer skills, and factors such as ethnicity and language. It also compares infrastructure cost, including connectivity infrastructure and service cost, among Africa, Asia, Europe, Middle East and North America, by using methodology and finding with discussion method. The result provides the gap exists already and how to narrow down it is still an issue to look into, for example who will pay for that progress?

In the article by Luyt, the system of XO seems have its own product line. So I was wondering besides the hardware cost, what is the potential software and resources cost further to enhance a better using of the XO.

As you can see from my very first blog, I was a complete novice when it came to video and digital games.  Also within my immediate family there is a feeling that games are frivolous.  What seemed incongruous to them was this up-to-now serious academic suddenly playing games.

However, I was curious as to what games could offer education and I have not been disappointed.  I particularly liked Nicola Whitton’s approach – focusing on what educators can learn from good game design and also her concentration on higher education which is where my own teaching is located.  As a sociologist I am fascinated by the evolution of digital game play which somehow passed me by – from the very public context of arcade gaming, to early console games, to initially textual multi-player online games in MOOs and MUDs, to fully 3D immersive MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft and Everquest, to ARGs and multi-modal games and mobile and wii games.  These developments have occurred in a relatively short time frame of about 30 years.  Being in my mid-fifties I can see how these developments have passed me by although I am not arguing strongly for a generational difference as I was never ‘into’ games that much. I can see someone of my generation who was a game enthusiast would have been enthralled by these developments.

I had a very simplistic notion of what is ‘play’ and what is a ‘game’.  The distinction between paedia (spontaneous, unstructured play) and ludic (structured play) (Caillois,2001) was illuminating particularly as I could apply it to my practice of qualitative analysis – where I can see a phase of ‘playing with the data’ in the paedia sense when experimenting with ideas, immersing oneself in the data and a more ‘ludic’ phase i.e a structured, methodical approach to managing and analysing data.  The problematic nature of ‘what is a game’ was brought home to me when we had to design in our own groups a game using Google Earth as the back drop.  After constructing our game, I was suddenly not sure whether it was a game or not (see blog).  I had to think hard about what differentiated a game from a learning activity.  This was not something I had expected – having read the literature on the characteristics of a game. It was in the practice of trying to design a game that the issues the literature discussed became meaningful.

My own experience with playing games during this course began with a lot of frustration.  I had never played arcade-style games so my attempts with PacMan (I had never even heard of PacMan!! – which seems amazing to me now), Donkey Kong etc. were fraught.  It was like entering a new world, learning a new language for me.  I did not enjoy the early weeks of game playing.  Ironically, I now play on my iPhone two arcade-style games – DoodleJump and Ragdoll 2.  I play them when I want some down time to relax and empty my mind – something I never thought possible during my first attempt at playing these games. And I get satisfaction in getting better – improving my score.  As I tried different types of games, I became more involved in them and started to look at them from a meta-level perspective – learning their design grammars or understanding their semiotic domain (Gee 2003).  This level of understanding was reinforced in searching for a game to review that would somehow be related to my practice.  At this point in the course, we had not looked at ARGs. I first looked at educational games but as most were aimed at the K-12 level, I did not find anything that I thought could be translated to post-graduates. I then looked at commercial games and the ones that I thought had relevance to qualitative analysis were detective games.  The one I ultimately chose (Missing: Since January AKA In Memoriam) I discovered retrospectively had elements of an ARG – playing as oneself, having 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.  The blending of the real and game worlds I particularly liked as it engendered a sense of the uncanny (Bayne 2008) – an uncomfortable feeling, a disorientation which mirrors the ‘troublesome’ nature of the qualitative analysis process and links to Meyer and Land’s (2005) notion of students’ needing to grapple with troublesome areas before being able to assimilate the ‘threshold concepts’ relevant to their subject area.

Missing: Since January was the first ‘long’ game that I played and I had to grapple with the variety of puzzles, arcade-style games as well as internet searches in order to proceed. I also discovered a number of cheats on the internet and thus connected with the affinity group associated with this game. At this mid-point of the course, I felt that I was getting a deeper understanding of games.

My biggest surprise was how much I enjoyed the MMORPGs.  I was slightly apprehensive about playing these games and I welcomed the fact that we would be playing them as a group.  I doubt whether I would have ventured into them alone.  I enjoyed developing my avatar and learning about the role my type of character plays in the game.  I have blogged about the ethical issues I think these games raise but I like, in general, the notion of completing quests.  World of Warcraft and Everquest II reminded me a bit of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings (with the idea of travelling through unknown lands to complete a quest).  Not surprisingly, I recently discovered that there is a Lord of the Rings MMORPG.  I enjoy the richness of inhabiting these simulated environments.

I am still absorbing how I can apply what I have learned about games to the way I design workshops supporting learning about the qualitative analysis process and the use of CAQDAS (Computer-Aided Qualitative Data AnalysiS).  I can see how each software package (such as ATLAS.ti,  MAXqda or NVivo) can be used as a platform for a game.  Using an existing software package as platform for a game (in the way we used Google Earth as a platform) has the benefits of being efficient in terms of cost (not having to design from scratch a game environment) and being authentic – playing in the environment that you are learning about.  However, I am reluctant to explore this route as these software packages are complex as it as and adding learning how to play a game on top of these packages would be adding an additional layer of complexity.  Students may feel they are wasting time learning how to play the game.  In addition, all these packages are in a phase of rabid development with new versions coming out every 18 months or so – any game I develop for a particular platform will be quickly out of date.

More importantly, I need to consider whether a game is an appropriate vehicle for the kind of teaching I do. I can see the relevance of the collaborative nature of games and the development of affinity groups to develop a researcher identity.  Many of the people who attend my courses are new not only to the software tools but to qualitative data analysis itself – so I see the potential of creating something that addresses that need.  Whether that something is a game or a series of learning activities is something I need to consider.  In fact, I should not think of my choice simply as an ‘either-or’ between a game or a learning activity. Jackson (2009) gives an example of game-based teaching where she used principles from gaming – levelling, “well-ordered problems”, immediate feedback, resubmission and discovery learning – in designing learning activities. What I need to steer clear of is what Papert (1998) calls – shavian reversals – combining the worst from the education and the gaming worlds. This is something I will be working out in my final assignment on designing a game.

References

Bayne, S. (2008) Uncanny spaces for higher education: teaching and learning in virtual worlds, ALT-J, 16:3, pp.197-205

Caillois, R. (2001) Chapter 2, 'The Classification of Games'. In Man, Play and Games. Illinois: University of illinois Press.

Gee, J.P. (2003) What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy, New York: Palgrave

Jackson, J. (2009) Game-based teaching: what educators learn from videogames, Teaching Education, vol. 20. No. 3, September 2009, pp. 291-304

Meyer, J.H.F. and Land, R. (2006) Threshold concepts: An introduction in Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge, London:  RoutledgeFalmer.

Papert, S. (1998) Does easy do it? Children, games and learning, Game Developer, June: 88

Whitton, N. (2010) Learning with Digital Games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher education, London: Routledge.