This diversity of virtual world users shows a variety of reasons and expectations for using virtual worlds... from overcoming race and physical handicaps, to fun and leisure and building of self-confidence and making real dollars...
Interesting.
So, does this virtual world allow different learners with different and personal preferences for experience and learning to satisfy their perceived needs and also learn something? Or, does this new phenomena not so much support explicit or measurable objective and universal learning goals, but more give learners a way to build their selves, their sense of self-efficacy, their sense of personal control and freedom - those characteristics that support more effective learning in a more structured, traditional instructional environment?
tc
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Dads and Kids Bonding Over Digital Games - part II
There's a pattern here... I am liking this dyadic learning process and relationship development.
I guess I better start learning how to play these games now, so I have at least 8or 9 years to get a leg up on my daughters!!!
; )
tc
(I'll blow them away when I pull out my old pocket-sized game of Simon...)
I guess I better start learning how to play these games now, so I have at least 8or 9 years to get a leg up on my daughters!!!
; )
tc
(I'll blow them away when I pull out my old pocket-sized game of Simon...)
One Teachers's Favorite Educational Games Site
Another article available in this free on-line trade mag is a somewhat biased (towards the "Yay!" column) opinion column on the future of educational games and their impact on motivation and, among other things, "analytical thinking, team building, multitasking, and problem solving under duress":
Computer Games: Educational Technology's Next Frontier?
tc
Computer Games: Educational Technology's Next Frontier?
tc
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Legend of the Syndicate
An interesting article forwarded to me from a colleague about the publication of a book detailing the history of a guild that has been together for 10 years playing Massively Multiplayer Online Games including Ultima Online, EverQuest, and World of Warcraft. The book should be interesting for those interested not only in gaming, simulations and virtual worlds, but also in the social networking that go along with them.
http://books.slashdot.org/books/07/06/26/0239237.shtml
http://books.slashdot.org/books/07/06/26/0239237.shtml
Monday, June 25, 2007
An Interview with James Gee...
First Big Question from this interview (retrieved 25 June 2007):
"All of the research that has determined that video games have positive effects has been about low-level brain activity, such as visual acuity and multi-modal processing. Where's the research that shows that games can provide other positive effects, be they improved application of logical reasoning, increased sensitivity to moral issues, or something else?"
James Gee response:
"Here a few things worth looking at:
Jones, S., (July 6, 2003). Let the Games Begin: Games and Entertainment Among College Students." Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Durkin, K., & Barber, B., (2002). Not so doomed: computer game play and positive adolescent development. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 373-392.
Gros, B., (2003). The impact of digital games in education. First Monday (www.firstmonday.org), Issue 8_7.
Fischer, G., (2003). Beyond "Couch Potatoes": From Consumers to Designers and Active Contributors. First Monday (www.firstmonday.org), Issue 7_12.
However, I would not want to claim that "video games have positive effects," but rather that "video games used in different ways have different effects." We learned long ago that a technology -- television, for example -- is not "good" or "bad." When children watch television passively, it is not particularly good for them, but when they watch with adults who get them to think and talk about what they are watching, then it can be good for them. I argue that video games can be good for children and adults when played actively and thought about at a meta-level in terms of their design features and the sorts of interactions they allow or encourage.
Furthermore, I don't claim that there is now lots of research showing games are good for deeper purposes. Rather, I argue that game technology has a great potential to be useful in getting people to learn and think about things (socially, cognitively, and morally). We need to study this potential and make use of it in new settings beyond the commercial markets to which most games are directed. This enterprise is just beginning. It has taken us years of research to sort out the uses and effects of literacy as a technology in its various social, historical, and cognitive settings and situations. So the questions really are these: Is game technology a worthwhile thing to study? Does it hold potential for spreading to contexts outside gaming?
What is most powerful about video games, I would argue, is that the "consumer" (player, learner) is also a "producer." Players actively co-create the virtual worlds of games by the decisions they make and the actions they take. In opened-ended games, the game is different for every player. Further, they can fairly easily build extensions and modifications to many games."
Tom's thoughts:
So, we, as Instructional Designers, are left with this challenge, to interpret the "high-potential" for use at a "meta level", map that to specific learning situations and instructional designs and events, make decisions on its use based on our knowledge of appropriate learning principles (and theoretical foundations) and be able to justify that design element to our users and customers and the end users.
I find this argument intriguing, but lacking sufficient tangential and supporting oomph... for the same reasons Gee himself stated. Are we really just looking at yet another round of skepticism and opposing hype around a new technology? I believe 100% in technology's value, but I have some reservations about overselling the technology without the stated application of thoughtful design.
Surely, there's a lot to be done in this field to establish repeatable, research based results and knowledge, and to integrate this and other new (and in my opinion, more readily integrated) social technologies.
It's tough to counteract the inertia of history and to accommodate the burden of proof - especially when we have multiple historical references that show the it's not the tool but how we use it - and in light of the fact that we still can't seem to find significant and consistent value in the research on other relatively new technologies - i.e. LMS, WWW, virtual classrooms, etc.
"All of the research that has determined that video games have positive effects has been about low-level brain activity, such as visual acuity and multi-modal processing. Where's the research that shows that games can provide other positive effects, be they improved application of logical reasoning, increased sensitivity to moral issues, or something else?"
James Gee response:
"Here a few things worth looking at:
Jones, S., (July 6, 2003). Let the Games Begin: Games and Entertainment Among College Students." Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Durkin, K., & Barber, B., (2002). Not so doomed: computer game play and positive adolescent development. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 373-392.
Gros, B., (2003). The impact of digital games in education. First Monday (www.firstmonday.org), Issue 8_7.
Fischer, G., (2003). Beyond "Couch Potatoes": From Consumers to Designers and Active Contributors. First Monday (www.firstmonday.org), Issue 7_12.
However, I would not want to claim that "video games have positive effects," but rather that "video games used in different ways have different effects." We learned long ago that a technology -- television, for example -- is not "good" or "bad." When children watch television passively, it is not particularly good for them, but when they watch with adults who get them to think and talk about what they are watching, then it can be good for them. I argue that video games can be good for children and adults when played actively and thought about at a meta-level in terms of their design features and the sorts of interactions they allow or encourage.
Furthermore, I don't claim that there is now lots of research showing games are good for deeper purposes. Rather, I argue that game technology has a great potential to be useful in getting people to learn and think about things (socially, cognitively, and morally). We need to study this potential and make use of it in new settings beyond the commercial markets to which most games are directed. This enterprise is just beginning. It has taken us years of research to sort out the uses and effects of literacy as a technology in its various social, historical, and cognitive settings and situations. So the questions really are these: Is game technology a worthwhile thing to study? Does it hold potential for spreading to contexts outside gaming?
What is most powerful about video games, I would argue, is that the "consumer" (player, learner) is also a "producer." Players actively co-create the virtual worlds of games by the decisions they make and the actions they take. In opened-ended games, the game is different for every player. Further, they can fairly easily build extensions and modifications to many games."
Tom's thoughts:
So, we, as Instructional Designers, are left with this challenge, to interpret the "high-potential" for use at a "meta level", map that to specific learning situations and instructional designs and events, make decisions on its use based on our knowledge of appropriate learning principles (and theoretical foundations) and be able to justify that design element to our users and customers and the end users.
I find this argument intriguing, but lacking sufficient tangential and supporting oomph... for the same reasons Gee himself stated. Are we really just looking at yet another round of skepticism and opposing hype around a new technology? I believe 100% in technology's value, but I have some reservations about overselling the technology without the stated application of thoughtful design.
Surely, there's a lot to be done in this field to establish repeatable, research based results and knowledge, and to integrate this and other new (and in my opinion, more readily integrated) social technologies.
It's tough to counteract the inertia of history and to accommodate the burden of proof - especially when we have multiple historical references that show the it's not the tool but how we use it - and in light of the fact that we still can't seem to find significant and consistent value in the research on other relatively new technologies - i.e. LMS, WWW, virtual classrooms, etc.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Anybody thought about the effect this new "world" has on our mental models?
Read this stuff about the big hullaballoo about adult content...
Listen to the words and references they make in their entries, pick out the jargon, new phrases, and word representations of how they view the SL world, with islands and a mainland, and...
If nothing else, this endeavor will embed the language, culture and ideas of a "new world" on our real world, and changes the lexicon.
Can it create a unique and new mental model for someone who is learning in SL?
tc
Listen to the words and references they make in their entries, pick out the jargon, new phrases, and word representations of how they view the SL world, with islands and a mainland, and...
If nothing else, this endeavor will embed the language, culture and ideas of a "new world" on our real world, and changes the lexicon.
Can it create a unique and new mental model for someone who is learning in SL?
tc
Millions of Us
a splinter faction, hiding out in the hills of San Francisco...
read their "about us" - no mention of the word education... hmmmm...
also, Gaia - interesting, more anime like, game like for the teens who enjoy that
I believe, that this virtual world phenom will expand, SL will implode like Netscape did as they are burdened with the weight of being the trailblazer and struggle to keep their original idealism and intent manageable in the face of a competitive market and litigation and the adult content issues (remember, Netscape introduced many of us the web using a "browser"...), competitors will spring up, divert the resources and attention, and in the end, it will be, as Millions of Us clearly states, about "the future of marketing, technology, entertainment and brand-building".
read their "about us" - no mention of the word education... hmmmm...
also, Gaia - interesting, more anime like, game like for the teens who enjoy that
I believe, that this virtual world phenom will expand, SL will implode like Netscape did as they are burdened with the weight of being the trailblazer and struggle to keep their original idealism and intent manageable in the face of a competitive market and litigation and the adult content issues (remember, Netscape introduced many of us the web using a "browser"...), competitors will spring up, divert the resources and attention, and in the end, it will be, as Millions of Us clearly states, about "the future of marketing, technology, entertainment and brand-building".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
