Recently in Authentic Games & PBL Category
By this Wed, I will have been lucky enough to both participate and present at two gaming events. What's been the winning meme so far? I think most of us would agree that it's "chocolate on broccoli" from Nathon Maton of Baxter Games.
Avoiding Matching Chocolate with Broccoli
The phrase is a warning that we don't want to slap on gamification on to a bad course and produce something even more something more indigestible (something like the examples given in the recent article Why Games Don't Teach by Ruth Clark.
Baxter Games and Jane McGonigal both recommend a deep gamification in which courses are turned into missions which can help students focus on higher order learning objectives like team play and strategic thinking. Clark, on the other hand, feels that games are best for low level "drill and kill". And some focus more one adding game like elements to basically make a course more fun to complete (play).
Maybe It's Cheese Sauce?
Which is the right? Maybe all three. I think the true power of games is that a game can reinforce many objective levels, depending on its design.
One of the most successful games at the Educational Gaming Commons, the Typo proofing game is essentially a "drill and kill", but a very effective one. There are elements of courses which are low level like proofing for grammar. But do you want your "broccoli" in the form of plain homework or would you like some musically animated cheese sauce? I know what the students said on the survey...
But that's not the only model the EGC has worked in. Another game focusing on different objectives was Sim Health and that was definitely not just "cheese sauce." In this gaming activity developed for a health policy course, students played a simulation game in which they tried to revamp the health care industry for a 16-year cycle trying to adjust for unexpected consequences.
This was an activity which teaches the complexity of balancing economic systems in a way no other activity could. And the key to its success was a debrief which allowed students to review "what went wrong" and what they could learn about health care policy. This could be done as a "simulation" too, but I think that's nitpicking.
Back to Learning Objectives
Whenever a discussion of the merits or drawbacks of any new learning technology or pedagogical approach comes up, I always think "What's the learning objective?" If a new tech doesn't fit the objectives, what is the point? But when the fit is right - magic happens. This has to remain the center of my pedagogical universe or I will get lost on a hopeless quest.
Oh and we should do some assessment too. ;)
In Matt Meyers wrap up about the recent Learning Design Summer Camp, he comments that we didn't have a chance to discuss the educational implications.
Although anything can be improved, I was hoping to use the game cards we handed out as a way of introducing some of the issues associated with providing education in a global environment. If you still have your game card, check out the question on the back to see an example of a globalization challenge.
Some of my favorite questions included:
- What would be the challenges to teaching a U.S. History course covering 1939-now for delivery in the East Asian market.Which events in particular might instructors want to explore non- U.S. points of view?
- An instructor in human anatomy has been asked about acupuncture for the past few semesters. What would be the best method to approach discussing these concepts? Can they be reconciled with Western medicine? Should they be?
- A student group is planning to visit Jerusalem over Spring Break (we're assuming that the political situation is relatively stable). What information would you give to students about the significance of Jerusalem in both the Middle East and to Western culture? What places should student visit to understand the complexity of Jerusalem? What are some precautions students should take?
- For an online course on the American Jazz Age (which includes music, art and text-based tutorials), a lot of your non-U.S. students request more robust mobile phone support since they don't have good access to a PC. How can materials be made more mobile device friendly, particularly in regards to the smaller screen size. What are some apps that could be recommended?
If you want to see the full list, download Globalize This Questions.docx.
I do think the missing piece was a debrief, but I was also trying to accommodate the need for caffeine on a hot afternoon. Live and learn
Is there enough interest for a true debrief later on? I know I would be interested in continuing the conversation.
Can I make through to the demo?
TypoatNMC.pptxLast week at the Gaming Brownbag, I gave a PuzzleTheory.pptx for education (a completely made up name) which is an exploration of how the principles of entertainment puzzles (Sudoku, solitaire, word games, math and logic games, etc) can be implemented in different courses, specifically those which assign lots of "problem sets" as homework.
I got interested in puzzles partly because I like them, but also because they structurally overlap with exercises I give out as homework, yet are actually considered fun. A question I have is what are the makers of Soduko and online solitaire doing that we're not to make these addictive.
Puzzles/Problem Sets vs. Design vs. Games
When considering learning objectives, it's important to consider the properties of entertainment puzzles versus a game or a "design". Puzzles are game-like in that there are formal rules, but different in that there is generally a limited solution set (sometimes just one). Also, games have competitors and generally have a winner, but a puzzle can be a solo activity.
Another distinction is design versus puzzles. There are lots of open-ended problems which can be solved with any number of creative solutions from architectural problems (environmentally friendly yet tasteful) to social engineering (getting people to eat vegetables) to optimization. You can (and should) build learning activities around these design issues, but I also think that puzzles with limited solutions are also valid.
Puzzles in Real Life
There are actually lots of puzzles in real life with few solutions....but it's not the case that we can find an answer (yet). Some recent examples
- What do those weird Egyptian heiroglyphic symbols mean? (solved!)
- Which crazy Unicode font is making Elizabeth's Photoshop crash? (unsolved)
- Why does the patient sufffer back pain?
- How many people are employeed by Penn State in each county?
- Where do you plug things in to set up Adobe Connect audio?
- Which route to a particular Washington DC suburb is the fastest?
Entertainment Puzzles vs. Problem Sets
In the discussion we had, we compared puzzles vs. problem sets. One issue we discussed was whether "bells and whistles" would add to the experience. Online puzzles generally have interesting graphics/sound effects (e.g. Mahjong for iPad) not found in problem sets.
Another feature of both modern puzzles and games is a wacky sense of humor. Each round of the iPad game Angry Birds presents the ballistic challenge of efficiently destroying a structure with a missile - yet few engineering classes will ask you how to launch an avian projectile to destroy building built by villainous pork.
A third issue was context - why should students care about the problem? In engineering, solving a problem correctly could prevent a major disaster. In linguistics or foreign language, it might mean being able to buy some groceries. Yet most problem sets present exercises out of context. It can be hard to write good word problems, but maybe we need some humor too!
Finally, a lesson I have to keep re-learning is to NOT make your problem sets too difficult. Addictive puzzles are those which are tricky, but not impossible to solve. A successful series of puzzles can you ramp you up from simple to easy so that you learn the easy puzzles quickly, then work your way towards more challenging puzzles. But once a puzzle becomes too hard, players quit.
As a general note, a puzzle that is fun or challenging for an instructor will likely be too hard for students, especially in intro courses. The students will probably be more frustrated by a challenge rather than being inspired by it (unless they happen to "get it").
Learning Through Failure
I think the most important insight I had was that part of solving a puzzle is going through a series of repeated failures until you get it right. That is, puzzles are somewhat low-stakes where you are rewarded more making an effort rather than perfection. Problem sets, on the other hand...generally high stakes.
| Entertainment Puzzles | Problem Sets |
|---|---|
|
|
This does make me think about how traditional education works. In the worst case scenario, we may show simple problems, but then assign students for homework (or show hard problems in class then assign very easy problems in homework to bewildered students).
What we rarely do is ask students to re-do a problem again so that they can learn from it. We just hope our answer key is clear enough for them to understand what went wrong. Nor do we ask students to work through a simple problem on their own, which could allow students to figure out the strategies. It is no wonder that they are passively waiting for us to tell them what to do - it's how instructors roll.
I know I am re-inventing problem based learning (PBL), but puzzles are a way to show how it can work successfully, when you start tossing birds at pigs.
One of the games I purchased for the iPad was Oregon Trail, a historical adventure game based on traveling west on the Oregon Trail. I was intrigued by this game because this is one of the few games based on an educational concept that was actually considered fun outside the classroom.
Game Play
For those who haven't played Oregon Trail before, the game is built around a quest to move your family West on the Oregon Trail before time and supplies run out and with as many survivors as possible.
You begin in Missouri with a wagon and some options to gear up your wagon and stock it with food, guns, bullets and clothing. You then head to different points on the trail. On the trail (at least in the iPhone version), you are given different challenges in terms of navigating barriers (e.g. rivers) and hunting food on the trail (this will be VERY important as it turns out). You also have to navigate different weather and hope no one gets sick or injured (beware the giant eagle). If that happens you have to choose whether to spend time healing, spend money on medicines or use some other supplies.
As with other adventures, you learn to juggle resources which is what the actual pioneers did. You also encounter historical figures (and even run optional errands for them such as delivering letters to the next town). This game effectively teaches you the hazards of the West and the benefits of cooperation as well as a good aim.
Design Lessons
What design lessons can instructional designers learn? I think most would agree that the lesson can be summed up as making sure a game "doesn't shove educational crap down your throat." BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
First, the game mood is a little on the silly side. The graphics were originally primitive, but even once better technology was available, the characters and setting were definitely cartoonish (I always loved Ma's giant bonnet and Pa's bushy mustache). Death is a common occurrence in this game, but is treated humorously. In many versions, kids get to write their own tombstones before getting back on the wagon.
The second part of the "no educational crap" is that there extended text explaining the hazards of the trail. You get the dysentery, then you decide how to handle it. The same is true for broken axles, sick oxen or low food supplies. It IS learning by doing. On a side note, the hazards are not rigorously described. It's not important to know the symptoms of dysentary to appreciate that someone is sick. Similarly, we don't need to know exactly which tribe we're encountering to appreciate the benefits of being nice to the local population. This means (sniff) eliminating real historical. I admit that this is a challenge for me, but it is just a game....
A third lesson is that the game is embedded in a personalized narrative because the game lets you experience the trail for yourself. Also, it's kind of a challenge. I was able to navigate most of the challenges, but that eagle is literally a killer. How to handle that sucker? Replay or cheat code seems to be the answer.
A final lesson to consider is that the game fits the learning objectives. The game does not really teach facts about the trail (e.g. specific locations, people, etc). You may learn some of this by playing frequently, but it's not critical information. The actual objectives are to understand the challenges of navigating the trail, and the game does this very well. In other words, I am thinking games are generally more about learning skills rather than facts.
Some Caveats
A discussion that comes up in educational gaming is how much gaming can replace traditional education. I would definitely agree that a well-constructed game can teach things that a lecture cannot.
But I also feel that if a game is used in the classroom, then there should be a debriefing session. Many times lessons are so well learned, that students don't even realize what they've learned until they reflect upon it.
Another concept I struggle with is how to incorporate a game with the "facts" valued by traditional education. One school of thought is to forget facts and focus on higher order knowledge, but I think that's too simplistic. Analysis often relies on someone recalling the right facts (in fact I always felt that Batman is probably a Trivia Pursuit whiz in disguise).
Games traditionally present this information needed as tutorials and references or in the framework of the plot, and I think that would work here too. But I do think it's important to remember that some of this verbal knowledge should have a place in a course, even if it's not as large as it traditionally has been.
This week's reading was on Video Games and Computer Holding Power by Sherry Turkle, which summarizes her ethnographic observations of game players from 1984. I thought was thoughtful in that it pointed out that gaming wasn't mindless, but pointed out that games have their own traps (I'm thinking of the episode "Hollow Pursuits" of Star Trek: TNG where one of the crew members deals with holodeck people rather than real people because he can control their reactions much better).
Gaming (and Knitting) Obsession
However another point that struck me was how one teenage girl had developed a love-hate relationship with her game. She had reached a fairly high level in the game, and while I am pretty sure she liked it in the beginning...at that moment she loathed it because she couldn't advance to the next level. But of course, she couldn't stop playing it until she had achieved a certain level.
This obsession is well-known among the gaming literature, but my first point is that it's NOT just gaming. Many complex tasks can rise to the same level of obsessive love/hate including Sudoku, puzzles, golf, knitting/embroidery, programming and cooking. The desire to improve your performance even as you are slowly being driven insane is what adds drama to many a reality TV competition show.
Obsession is also what drives us to complete tasks and spend the time needed to master complex skills. In many cases too, the reward is intrinsic (at least in terms of financial gain). Maybe you complete a game level to show the game who is boss or to get a higher score than your friends. I've completed some projects because I was confident that they would look "cool." For a lot of these challenges, I am happy if other people like the results, but not necessarily concerned if they don't.
Obsession in the Classroom
An interesting question is how well can this be translated into the classroom? Motivation is a key aspect of your being willing to go through the agony needed to master some skills. I was willing to start a knitted hat seven times (not kidding), and I was putting serious time trying to get to level 8 of Bewjeweled. But do we know anyone willing to put in the same effort for their homework? Only very rarely (and usually only if it's in the student's major).
We are investigating educational games because we assume that they will be more enjoyable than traditional homework assignments, and I do believe that is true...up to a point. One challenge though is that not everyone likes every game. I was willing to learn the different plant weapons for Plants vs. Zombies, but not necessarily those for other war games. Nor have I been attracted to John Madden's NFL Football, Grand Theft Auto or even golf. Not working for me for whatever reason.
You could assign a sports game like John Madden's NFL Football in a business class and have students learn some good financial lessons in managing talent. Again though, what if you don't like football (or basketball or hockey)? Without knowing who the current stars are or how to evaluate them for a game, the play is fairly meaningless.
Could we supplement this kind of exercise with a series of optional games? If the point of using a game in a hypothetical business class is resource management, maybe other games could be added like Cake Mania which might appeal to the non-sports crowd.
The Game of Higher Education
The larger challenge is the effect of being in a structured classroom at all on motivation. Even if you are taking a class in a subject you love, chances are you are still a little bit concerned about your course grade (I know I was). In your recreational life, you can take a class and focus on what you need to know. If you don't get a great grade or performance, so what? It doesn't count. If you really are bad at it, you can move on to a different hobby or try again in a few years.
But when education is related to your professional life (or future professional life), the stakes are much higher. Many people are deeply concerned about the course grade and GPA, even if they are in a major they like. The Penn State diploma does allow you to enter the job market with a better certification than someone with only a high school degree, and a higher GPA on that diploma opens up other opportunities.
It really is no wonder people in class focus so much on grades and not on content...especially when the course is one they are taking as a requirement and not for fun. The goal in this scenario isn't really "learn as much X as I can", but "learn just enough X to get the grade I need." An immersive activity taking many hours to master is NOT what students are looking for...even though it may be the best thing for them.
This is where educational games can class with the realer "Game of Higher Education" in which students find strategies to minimize effort for maximum output (grades). This current generation has probably still learned a bunch of cool tricks to maximize output vs effort for traditional lecture classes and either have none for new assignments like games, video production or blogging, or they realize they will take more time to do. No wonder they resist and turn to excuses like "the tech is too hard" (is it harder than Facebook? Really?)
Sucking it Up?
Since I am in ETS designing these opportunities for students, I would never advocate giving these up in the classroom. They are valuable precisely because they require more cognitive engagement than just reading the textbook. There's even a good chance that students will prefer more active assignments...once they get on board with one.
What I am advocating that we understand that a student playing a game (or shooting a video) in a class is different than doing it for fun. There may not be as much motivation to master the interface without documentation, or as much motivation to figure out a workflow plan. I do think instructors have to suck it up and provide a little more support if we want these activities to succeed.
But they can succeed, and when magic strikes a student realizes that that boring requirement is actually kind of interesting and worth putting in just a little more effort to get to the next level.
I went to my first Sloan-C ALN conference last week somewhere in central Florida near some lovely historic towns and lovely lakeside scenery. Location aside, I found the Sloan-C conference interesting because it is appealing to a wide audience from K-12 to higher ed and from advanced experts to total novices. There was a lot to pick and choose from in terms of presentations. Here were some trends and highlights I did get to observe.
Second Life and Virtual Worlds
We've taken a breather from Second Life here at Penn State, but there were actually a lot of sessions devoted to it at the conference. One class in social work used it for both virtual tours (e.g. to both the U.S. Holocaust Museum) and for "social experiments" such as "The Store", a scenario where avatars had to buy emergency food from a grocery store, but were locked out or admitted based on the color of their "HUDs." Lots of interesting use of scripting here.
Best Second Life tip - If you want to show a movie in world, set up multiple video screens so avatars can get a good view no matter where they are.
Another presentation discussed science themed exhibits and locations in Second Life, particularly those designed by NASA. But other virtual worlds were discussed including a virus lab in Why Ville, ancient world simulations on Heritage Key and project management in World of Worldcraft. Now that Second Life has discontinued its academic discount, many are predicting that schools will leave for other alternatives like the ones described here as well as places like Xenos Island (foreign language) and various sim grids in the OpenSimulator model (very much like Second Life).
It appears that there will be interesting times ahead for virtual worlds.
Accessibility
The good news is that accessibility was on people's minds. There were several presentations available, and they were reasonably well attended. The bad news is that the general mode remains reactive rather than proactive. The bulk of the presentations focused on quick fix strategies one might need should a student with disabilities appear on your student roster. Interestingly, the audience shared some very good tips at how to be a little more proactive and really work the challenge. The MovCaptioner tool was a much appreciated suggestions.
Global Snapshot
My main purpose at being at ALN was to participate in a joint presentation on the Global Snapshot report completed over the summer. I was pleasantly surprised at how many people attended despite the topic seeming a bit obscure (although maybe not so obscure with many presentations coming from outside the U.S.) You can see a summary of my portion in my blog post on M-Learning in Africa
Speaking of global outreach, one of my favorite presentations was one about how to market to Japanese students for your virtual program. The presenter, Annie Shibata, noted that although the Japanese market was far ahead of the U.S. in terms of mobile technology, access to the Internet via laptop/desktop was lagging behind. She was not sure how much Internet tech was being introduced in the higher education curriculum today as it had not been encouraged in the past. However, I later attended a session on blogging with Moodle from an ESL program in Japan, so some programs are adopting e-learning strategies.
Most of Shibata's strategies were about marketing, specifically - being willing to invest 2-3 years in building a base, including a residency option in the U.S. (even if it's just a short time) and investing in Japanese translators or local liaisons (who may be in the time zone as Japanese students). Some of these tips may already be known to World Campus who has a profile of a Japanese student in their marketing, but it was good information for anyone working with international students.
My Favorite Presentation
I think the presentation that intrigued me the most was a report of mental models using the mechanisms of graph theory (nodes are nouns/concepts and lines are verbs/relationships). As instructional designers I think a lot of us would agree that learning is understanding the student's initial mental model and then guiding to one the instructor feels is more accurate. A stumbling block though has been to determine how to consistently document a mental model so that models could be systematically compared. Any progress in that area would be a welcome development.
Although we were not able to see a specific model, she did have some interesting results to report on misconceptions of incoming instructional design graduate students. My favorite was that instructional designers needed to know specifically where a course would be taught before it could be designed (even if that were true, it would be impossible in most of the real world).
Another interesting outcome was that she showed that two SMEs did generate different models for the same process. Again, this is not a surprise, but the two models could show different strategies in processing information. Could there be a future where instructors and students sharing similar models were matched up? Would that be a good thing or would it not allow for enough diverse information? Interesting questions. This is one presentation I hope to download in a few weeks.
This is a presentation I will want to review once it goes online.
Just had an interesting discussion with the IRB board (the good kind of interesting) about how to establish consent for observing a class activity.
One of our current Educational Gaming Commons projects involves converting a face-to-face game to an online format....which will be played in every section in a hybrid course. Because every section is hybrid and because the game is an integral part of the course, we really can't have control sections without the game. If we did, the students might not have an alternative activity.
Our assessment plan therefore involves observing the original face-to-face game. Very simple, except that I couldn't figure out how to "discard" data from students who didn't want to participate in the study. The game is too chaotic to NOT observe everyone, and it was a requirement, so students had to be there to get credit.
I passed this on to the IRB board, and they had a good solution - stickers. At first, we thought to hand out stickers to those who didn't consent, but I was concerned they might feel put on the spot. So we changed it to hand out colored stickers to everyone. I might also ask them to put names or initials on it, so I can give everyone an identifier.
This is a good solution and I might use it for other in-class IRB activities (e.g. in-class focus groups). I ran a focus group in class and it was actually a real challenge to track who was and wasn't participating because I wouldn't get consent forms until the end ... after data was already recorded. Yikes.
Colored stickers...who knew.
