For the last week I have been participating in the Serious Games Jam and it came about that I posted about motivation and approach. This setting contributed to the efforts, but did not generate the motivation to figure this out. Rather it gave context, which was a serious buzz word during the Jam. That perhaps pushed me as something not quite right, but that's still doesn't explain the motivation.
No, the motivation was outside the entire situation and a part of the picture that I brought. It wasn't due to the context of the jam or the "game" of earning "Karma" points to win a Nintendo DS. There was something inside me that motivated me to try to find answers related to serious games, that motivated me to participate in the Jam, that motivated me to push through the hardships and get to the good parts, the rewards, but the rewards didn't generate motivation. I'd stopped expecting to "win" the "game" early on. So, what was it?
How I Figured it Out:
Due to a tweet from Jim Groom, if I remember correctly, I came across a parody article. That's where it started.
Parody: http://bionicteaching.com/?p=997
Real Article: http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3797/students-prefer-real-classroom-to-virtual-world
The real article was also mentioned in OLDaily, by Stephen Downes.
OLDaily Edition: http://www.downes.ca/archive/09/06_02_news_OLDaily.htm
Specifically: http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=49149
While I thought it was interesting, nothing triggered at first, but in the post by Stephen Downes there is mention of the comments made on the article, so I started reading them. In there, somewhere, the ideas started smashing together like atoms in a giant atom smasher giving me a glimpse of smaller parts. That's where I found the motivation from outside video games that educators have been looking to add to their curriculum.
From my SGJ forum post:
"What came to mind is that motivation, approach and goals all need to coincide for the learning to really happen well. In the normal school environment grades are the goal, not learning. When you have people together who want to learn, and have a decent way to learn, the learning is likely to happen. Why?
Students are told what they should and shouldn't do all the time it seems. Truth is most of us are taught from a young age to follow orders without thinking about them. In that case you are being told not to care about the the how or even the what. So, the question becomes, why should they care about learning? The answer heard most of the time boils down to, "I said so." That's not the kind of motivation found in games.
In a game you expect to fail sometimes. That failure gives you feedback that you can use to improve, in good games. Most of the time that feedback is in the form of watching what happens as it happens. Then you use the scientific method to improve. Hypothesis, testing, analysis and repeat as needed. That's an engaged approach that is looked for in education, however it isn't the games themselves that generate the motivation and approach.
Through experiences we see potential, we create dreams/goals and then we hope to reach them. The more effective the action is perceived to be in reaching the dreams/goals, the more hope the person has that it will work. That hope motivates the person to go through the hardships to reach their dreams and goals.
So, first a person needs the experiences that open up the potentials of their life to the person. That gives them things to dream about doing and becoming. Goals are born of the dreams and hope is born of the perceived possibility to reach those goals and dreams."
There's the motivation, "hope motivates the person to go through the hardships to reach their dreams and goals". Give a person hope to attain their dreams and aspirations and suddenly their willing to go through hardship to get there.
In another thread there was a discussion about what serious games are, since people didn't seem to be agreeing. Before a certain video was shared with the group the defining point of a serious game was intent, after it was shared the defining point was agreed to be serious application. In essence, any game that could be used in a serious application became a serious game in that application.
The Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN0qRKjfX3s
Suddenly there were two elements that the group decided were at play, the game and the context. However, both had been in use for a while now, not very well most of the time, but they are used. They didn't answer the big questions for me.
Here's what I wrote in response to the pre-video discussion about the intent being the deciding factor.
"I believe the serious vs entertainment comparison is counterproductive. A serious game can be an entertainment game as well as a an entertainment game can be a serious game. It's like saying something is either tall or wide. First, it depends on the direction you turn it. Second it depends on comparison and scale. To be honest, I don't like the term "serious game" because it doesn't easily map to the real meaning, a game with a serious application. Any game that can be used for a serious application is a serious game in that application to me.
Fact is that game design is user experience design and communication, and that means all you are able to do is give the opportunity. It's the user's way of using what you designed that determines how serious the game is to me."
Games are activities, mental or physical, with rules and goals where the player takes on a role in an agreed upon fictional setting and state of play. Within that setting the person may be a paddle, a fighter, hero, villain, monster or anything else, including themselves. That's the identity they take on, the role they play, in that pretend scenario.
Earlier this year I countered Stephen Downes on the topic of Educational Games. In it I mentioned a video of James Gee, but I would like to add to that two more videos I've come across. The first is "The Urgency of Open Education" by Brian Lamb. The second is Dave Egger's TED talk "Once Upon a School".
See, when you go through those videos you can see the motivational hope to reach goals through participation. Games are by their nature interactive with goals to be attained with a possible promise of being entertained, engaged or something else. The player is immersed into an environment designed to teach the player how to succeed in the game, to make it more enjoyable to play. They have to teach well to prevent the player from deciding not to play, due to frustration.
The games and context require something from the player to really work, participation, as I noted in the forum discussions. "Context influences the perception of the game experience the user has, but does not determine it. Those using games for serious applications should design the context to support the serious application. The rest is up the the user's motivation and approach. While I agree the context is important, I say that because it is part of the game experience, just like elements of the game. If somebody isn't open to the serious application of the game, that's pretty much it."
So, where is the root motivation, the approach? Well, that's where I come back to the original forum post I made about Motivation and approach, "From that logic I see a need to help people see potential and that it IS possible to attain." We need to encourage people to dream and show them that it is possible to make those dreams come true. If they don't have dreams or goals, why would they care enough to put out effort? If they have dreams and goals that are very basic, why would they work really hard to excel? If they have dreams and goals that they don't believe can become their reality, why would they really apply themselves?
Be real. Go big, or go home. Live your dream. When there is no fantasy in the mind there is no fantasy in the life. My life is like a cartoon show because I live it like that. Nature, dreams, friends, games, fun, wonder, learning, improving ... When people tell me that what I'm about to do is impossible, I respond with, "Just watch." That's because if I do it while they are watching, they can see that it IS possible. Since I didn't tell myself it was impossible, I stood a chance of doing it if it is possible. I dream and live, because I want to DO.
Imagination and dreams are what propel us into the unknown waiting for us to reach for it. At this point I ask you to watch another TED talk, because it sums up several cultural issues to be faced to motivate people to learn.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
We need to stop limiting the creativity of others with our fears. Parents can't protect their children from everything, nor should they. I mean that very seriously, and not just for parents. As a toddler I bit my Mother, once. I only did it once because she thought it was a Texan giant bug of some sort and tried to smack it full force. Since there was no bug there, I was smacked instead. Pain is just pain, not damage. Failure isn't the problem, it's the results that can come from failure. Because she smacked me, I learned and didn't bite as a child, at all.
When we are wiling to take a little pain here and there with some failures along the way, we become open to exploring ideas, like when we play. When playing, which is the state that games are supposed to induce, we do not mind a little pain, boredom, failure and we let go of the tight laced straitjacket of conformist tradition. Why, because it's play, not serious. This is where the term "serious games" goes completely wrong. It still needs to be play, meaningful learning play. Yes, that's another TED talk. Watch it and you'll understand why it's there and what I meant just now.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s_vital.html
A play, is where people present role playing of a scene to the audience, and we call it art. It's not just art, it's make believe, pretend. It is encouraging people to think beyond their current lives and consider other possibilities that exist, showing them things that can be done. It's also entertainment.
This all comes together with an understanding of learning that says experience and knowledge together, not apart, enable learning. Work done to learn is a part of play. Play is a part of the motivation for doing some things, but even that does have a motivation sequence that matches what I have described. Seeing the enjoyment of those playing, one is likely to long to share such experiences. That's the exposure through experience creating dreams and goals. Since it is easy to participate and reach the goal, there is the hope to motivate the person to play.
This play motivation is the basis to really getting people motivated to do anything. If people refuse to play, it's nearly impossible to motivate them to do anything, because they have to at least be willing to entertain, play with, a thought to be motivated concerning that thought. People who open mindedly use logic play with it.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
View Blog Reactions
0 comments:
Post a Comment