Gaming Beyond Boudaries

It's times like this that I am encouraged in my efforts with game design a learning science. Over at the Lost Garden, Dan wrote about a project to use gameplay to make Microsoft Office easier to understand and use. Another article I'm just reading now is one put out by the Defense Department of the US about the benefits of gaming on observation, creativity and handling new situations.

"I think we're at the beginning of a new science of learning," he [Ray Perez, a program officer at the ONR's warfighter performance department] said, "that will be the integration of neuroscience with developmental psychology, with cognitive science, and with artificial intelligence."

I've been going on about this for about a year and a half, while others have been talking about it for longer than that. Now it seems like some of the scientific proof is coming to prove what we've been saying all along, that game design can help educational design. Yet, this shouldn't discourage us little guys from putting our best out there for the world to see. Instead, it should encourage us that there are better times ahead.

We've known for a while that the US military has it's eyes on educational and training uses for video games. Besides the training simulators and similar games, there were the Army games made to share the experience with the public. I've also heard of combat video games being used to help experienced combatants re-integrate with civilian life. Yet this is even bigger than just the potential military uses. This is the military saying that their game-based training programs have had certain types of results.

It will be interesting to what happens this year.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Read more!

Gaming Beyond Boudaries

View Blog Reactions

Rethinking the Madness to My Method

Originally this blog was started due to my dedication to a learning and educational initiative project idea using communities, content and tools. I've posted several times about this idea in the past, and continue to try to get this dream to come true. However, some things have changed that have my changing my plans as to how to get this project going.

First is that I have a new resource coming my way, one of the new iPod Nanos that records video. I want to use this tool to create videos to put on the internet and leverage what I've learned about communication and making things interesting to other people for a project. That project is to include local artists, including students. I have some ideas for helping fellow artists improve their methods outside of art techniques. It's also a bit of a networking effort to possibly find local artists that would be willing to work with me on my goals. If nothing else I may be able to show them how including interesting materials into their art can improve the quality of their art.

Second is that I've realized that my focus on the technology is a hindrance to my efforts right now. With that in mind I'm going to focus more on getting something small going where I can create some good resources on creativity, critical thinking and more skills that some would say are not teachable. Of course, I plan on making those resources free and open, though I do have some monitization ideas for it. Yet, those effort would not change the accessibility of the materials. Instead, they would give me more to use to improve them. Maybe it will also include the "Downes Model" for some of it, though I have no idea how I might right now.

Anyways, the big thing is that by shifting my method, I can possibly get things rolling now and get somebody to help. With this I'm hoping that I might have a better chance at things like the Education Entrepreneur Fellowship run by The Mind Trust. I've entered twice and been unable to get past the first round of the selection process twice. If I'm doing and getting results, then I figure the odds go up that others will help.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Read more!

Rethinking the Madness to My Method

View Blog Reactions

Learnings Styles, or Skills?

I was just reading through the last week or so of OLDaily issues when this question came to mind, "Are learning styles really skills and/or literacies?" It's just that we have media literacies, critical thinking skills and memorization skills, so is it possible that learning styles are really a combination of skill and/or literacies? From my experience it makes sense to think of them this way.

I'd really like to get a response from Stephen Downes on this question, and that's why I'm actually making this post. With this way of looking at the concept of learning styles it makes sense that somebody could become a specialist in learning based on observation skills, literacies and more. Of course, what else there is in that is another thing I'd like to hear/read his opinion on. Perhaps comprehension, critical thinking and speed compatibility should be added to the list.

Personally, while I may have style preferences, I can learn pretty well in any of the traditional methods. However, this is something I've been working on specifically as skills for most of my life. As a more logic and thinking oriented person, I seek accurate information to work with. If the information is wrong, my conclusions are likely to be as well. Audio, visual and kinesthetic modes of learning all work pretty well, but they also have their own strengths and weaknesses.

While I would like to put my thoughts on the pros and cons of each mode into words, I find that the organization really doesn't fit with my thoughts and observations. Linguistics, both audio and visual, seems to be grouped together for their benefits in communication, but lake in robustness. The color, tone and other relative aspects of the language symbols used also have their place in this.

After looking some of this up, it appears to me that the above is in line with the Fleming's VARK model, based on the Wikipedia page for Learning Styles. Since I am trying to get the attention of Stephen Downes, it seems prudent to mention this, as otherwise he's likely to do so. Another note to make about this is that it is also the one that was shared with me in school as early as fourth grade, so there may be some influence there.

Having looked into the methods of creating video games for several kinds of physical disabilities, by working with a physically disabled artist and game designer, this seems closely tied to media literacies. For instance, surround sound and conditional noises together might be too much for somebody with sight to filter through in a game. However, that may be just fine for somebody who is blind and has to rely on their hearing far more than somebody with sight. In this way it seems like physical abilities mix with media comprehension type skills to allow a person to understand their surroundings, which could include content in media. Understanding this could help in all types of media and experience design as they are all forms of communication.

So, what do you think is needed to learn?

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Read more!

Learnings Styles, or Skills?

View Blog Reactions

Questions, Creativity and Critical Thinking

I was just reading a book, Wake Up Your Mind 101 Ways To Develop Creativeness by Alex Osborn in 1952. Besides being a wonderful book, that you can read online or download a couple ways from that link, it reminded me of something that has always bothered me, and then connected it to being a creative and critical thinker. It's asking questions, specifically children asking questions. What hit me was that if you tell a child to stop asking questions, you are telling them that being inquisitive is bad, and should be stopped. Then it also covered how the silliness of make-believe and pretending is the same in exercising our creative and critical thinking capacities. A child told to stop asking questions and stop playing around is then like a child not allowed to physically play or exercise.

Part of the reason this really hit me is how often people get irritated with children asking questions and how often I'm thanked for patiently fielding such onslaughts. A bright, intelligent, creative mind is a beautiful thing to watch in motion, so I normally enjoy these Q&A sessions with little children. There are exceptions, mostly due to the child trying to be annoying or irritating, but that is rare I've found.

A child asking a question is asking to be taught, to be guided, yet this action is commonly condemned until the child is deemed ready for such activities. At that point the child has learned that their acceptable role is to not ask questions, accept what they are told and to not think critically for themselves. Then they(we) are punished for not being creative and thinking critically sometimes, and at other times being punished for being creative and thinking critically. I can't help but think of a line from the movie Ever After, "If you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners corrupted from infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded, sire, but that you first make thieves and then punish them?"

The innate motivation of playing games is one of the big reasons people are looking into the potential of games for learning and education. Asking questions is like playing games when it comes to motivation. The insatiable curiosity of children and their questions should be enough evidence of that.

I'm not the biggest fan of "growing up", and never really have been. See, children play and adults work. Let me rephrase that, a dolt works, or is made a dolt by the work mentality. Playing is not always fun, but it is far more enjoyable than work. Enjoying what you do, having fun with it and playing with it takes more thought. A dolt doesn't play, because even games become work for them. Playing around doesn't mean you can't be responsible, respectful and reliable. "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy", and both dull and dolt refer to those who are not intellectually inspiring.

Now, that may be a little biased, as I am something of a gamer. However it seems to me that the more playful a person is, the more creative and critical thinking they do. The less playful they are, the less they do such thinking.

This seems to be what has happened in education. Students are expected to work, and thus take a work mentality to the whole matter, usually. This fits the pattern of just trying to do well on tests, or in grades. The lack of enthusiasm, motivation and extra effort can be seen in work mentality work environments. This gets at the heart of what a game is, at least to me

"creative companies do often have think symbols in the work place that remind us, remind people, to be playful and that it is a permissive environment" & "we think playfulness helps us get to better creative solutions, helps us do our jobs better and helps us feel better when we do them" - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play.html

Perhaps game design lessons can help education bring back the curiosity and questions that come with a play mentality.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Read more!

Questions, Creativity and Critical Thinking

View Blog Reactions

National Standardized Testing to Communism

So I was reading OLDaily and came across a blog post called Debunking the Case for National Standards. The parallel that came to mind was from my social studies classes, Communism. Both treat everybody the same, treat people like cogs in a machine and treat alternatives like public enemies. While not an alarmist, that is what came to mind about the idea and effects of a Nationalized, Standardized Testing system.

These three things are just thoughts to keep in mind.

Equal and Same, are not the Same

Variety is the spice of life, supposedly, and is evident in many aspects of life. One of those is teamwork. If a writer and an artist work together they can create a better comic book than two artists or two writers. Even assuming equal talent, two writers do not use the same skills in the same ways. That goes for artists, programmers, mathematicians and scientists. Equal is based on value, while the other is based on similarity.

Now, let's try jobs, where the same pattern is also in evidence. Two jobs, say writer and editor, may be equal, even though they are not the same. Two Editors, while equal in ability, may not be the same in skills or use of those skills.

Equal: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equal
"like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc."

Same: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/same
"identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned"

Another aspect of this is that the differences in people can cause the value to be seen only via different methods or angles. It's not that a single test can't do the job, but rather that it would have to be adaptive and relative in it's multi-faceted scoring. Then the results have to be framed as the results of a dedicated effort to measure and be measured. That kind of result is then limited in usefulness, as there are people who do worse in artificial situations than in real situations, and the other way around.

Cogs don't Think Critically

A cog in a machine is supposed to do it's one job, and nothing else. It's another cog's job to evaluate the effectiveness of the system. It's another cog's job to suggest a solution. As a cog who is not designated to do either of those things, doing them takes away from the current job, whatever that may be. As a student in a test score oriented education system, the job is to do well on tests, not learn.

Please don't get me wrong. Effort and being rewarded for that is good, as is being able to focus, but this is going overboard. Takes Japan's education system for example. There are some aspects I really, truly love about it, and others I detest. A student is expected to be a student, supported as a student and their teachers are respected for their roles in the lives of the students. However, you have to test into even your junior high and high schools. Being segregated (Remember that word from American history?) by your test scores is not something I like about the system. There are after-school schools specifically for test-prep, nothing else. There's a special name for the university entrance exams, "Exam Hell".

Students are humans, not cogs. There are generally two types of motivation in life, survival and desire. Survival is an externally triggered motivation, while desire is internally motivated. In a test driven education system, the student is trying to survive the experience with their goals intact. They don't study because they desire to learn, but rather to survive the tests. Depending on survival motivation can lead to a culture of fear.

No Alternatives means No Freedom, or Innovation

Innovation needs some pressure most of the time, but there should also be hope mixed in. If there is no hope, there is little motivation, except being cornered, to innovate. Since there is an upper limit to all our system designs, it makes sense that the designs will need to be redone eventually. That usually comes from innovation.

So long as there is a way to do-it-yourself, there is the freedom to innovate. This is both inside and outside the system. If a teacher is not allowed to alter the curriculum for the benefit of their class, they lack the freedom needed to do their job well, let alone implement something new. If a student has only one way to get recognized for their skills and knowledge (two different things), they are stuck.

Now this brings up the problem of technically functional solutions, emphasis on "technically". See, if you can test out of course, but it costs the same as normally taking the course, why would you risk taking the test instead of just taking the course? I just see when the test is better than the course for you. That doesn't seem like most people, so it seems that while the option is technically available, it isn't really helpful. If you have to do well on a test, but the test doesn't reflect your true capabilities in a real life application of the curriculum, you're stuck hoping for an alternative or aiming for the test. The test technically is measuring your abilities, just not in a helpful way. This is just the start of the problem.

When there are no options, humans will eventually make an option, or endure. If it's bad enough to warrant making another option, but there is a technically functional solution in place, there is a problem. Some will point at the solution they think works and say there isn't a need. Some will say that the effort should go through the solution that is already available. Some will say that you are being selfish and rebellious for not being willing to work within the system. These take the steam out of innovative efforts just as much as having many secret supporters and nobody to back you in public. Sometimes having no alternatives is disguised so it looks like there are alternatives, and more in the works, with nothing that will help and some that will harm.

Like I said, I'm not an alarmist, but this does seem like something to keep in mind. History tells us that humans don't do well when treated like nameless, faceless numbers in the system. They don't think critically or creatively, for the most part, under those conditions. To me, this seems to indicate that we should allow for some, I repeat, SOME, individuality in how students are treated, what they learn and how they get things done. I'm neither a robot, nor a clone, nor somebody who wishes to cause chaos, so why should I, as a student, be treated like that? Like I said, it's just something to think on, and remember.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Read more!

National Standardized Testing to Communism

View Blog Reactions

Education, Star Trek Style

Yesterday I saw the new Star Trek movie, and besides enjoying the movie I was inspired to think about a test scene, and why it was lacking. While I won't give away the good parts, there are a couple points to make note of in the earlier plot. First, James T. Kirk passes a supposedly unpassable test. Second, Spock and Kirk have a debate about the whole situation. That's what got me thinking about the test, and how I would have redesigned it to be more effective.

A while back I made a post, "Edupunk, Star Trek Style". It included a funny little scene that popped into my head that seemed to sum up a fair bit of the Edupunk concept. In much the same way an idea popped into my head and I see parallels that I want to share. Okay, so last time I wanted to share the funny little scene, but that's not important.

The test set-up looked to be a star ship bridge simulator running a scenario designed to make people face their fears. However, such a test seems ineffective to me, considering the goal. Here's why, nobody ever beat the simulation, so few ever expect to "win", and there results of such a "loss" were negligible in every way. It wasn't about winning or losing; it was about how you performed during the test. However, if the people taking the test do not live in the fake reality for that time, they are not going to behave the same as they would in real life, and would have the same fears to face. See the problem?

So, I got to thinking about the problem, and tried to come up with a different design that would work. After some thought, a couple changes came to mind. First, make the loss more significant. This is because without significance, the loss means little to those taking the test and thus has less effect on their behaviors. Second is to make the situation more real in general to the test taker. The fake bridge sounds good, but if it doesn't get dirty, explode and support the simulated experience it will be a constant reminder that the whole thing is staged, pretend.

How to make the loss more meaningful and the experience more real then became my goal. Without the chance to win, you will always lose, and that makes losing normal, average and expected. If there is a chance to win, you may not lose. While that doesn't make losing less normal all by itself, it does give an opportunity to make it less normal. That's why it seemed like doing the same type of task on a regular basis to reflect the rolls the star fleet cadets are training for would be best. Most of the time they won't be doing anything too complicated or difficult. That means success becomes a regular situation, assuming the participants can perform at the required difficulty level. Then when the crazy tasks come out of the blue, like in real life, they are taken by surprise. That makes situation more realistic and a loss more meaningful, because if you "killed" your crew in the simulation, you probably would have got them killed in real life.

The general idea seems transferable to non-Star Fleet training to me. It is just applying a few general patterns to the "test" to make the "test" more effective. Last time I checked there are still lots of tests in school and education, so maybe applying these patterns to testing in schools would make them more effective too.

1) Real Application
If I'm using the same skills being taught, but with meaning, purpose and a connection to real life, I'm more likely to care about my performance. This is because I can see how my performance in the now reflects my chances in "real life". So, it makes sense to make the application of skills be real life applications instead of memorization verification questions.

2) Regular Application
If it is realistic, there are likely to be few killer problems to face, but there will be plenty to do. This is your practice for mastery, and a chance for exploration of possibilities. This also sets up a reliable, consistent aspect that can be depended on.

3) Random Application
If everything is standardized in obvious ways, the entire process becomes sterile and clean. The value of testing somebody in a non-realistic way is little. The value of repeated, predictable homework is little. Without variety, the mind doesn't engage as much. That means there is less thought, less critical thought.

4) Relevant Application
If it means nothing to me, why should I care? If it's all for the grade, why should I care about anything else? In the Star Trek concept, it was easy, because the people are being trained for positions in a military organization. In our schools, we have more possibilities to contend with. Instead of the old approach of just learning what you are going to be using at work, I think we should be exploring and learning a wide variety of possibilities.

That last one points to a part of the problem of self-discovery, as does the second. It also reminds me of a quote. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein If we keep looking over the same information, keep reliving the same experiences, how are we to find out anything new, when we haven't the last 40 times? If there are several ways to approach a math problem, and you try them, you can find out which makes the most sense to you and what they work best for. You can learn the reliable behaviors. The same can be applied to the way people learn. In one math class I found that doing the homework normally didn't work well for me, so I talked with the teacher to adjust the method to better fit me. In the end it worked out well. As a side note, that quote fits perfectly with the scientific method It seems we could use more of this in the schools.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Read more!

Education, Star Trek Style

View Blog Reactions