doctorate

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Can a kid make a Minecraft server?

-

Can a kid make a Minecraft server?

I think there’s plenty of evidence that kids, even as young as 11, are capable of making and running their own Minecraft server. 

Perhaps running a server sounds easy, but it’s not quite so simple. It’s obviously easier if you go the “paid” hosting route, which does it all for you. But what about hosting on your own computer? Well, that requires some learning, as one 11 year old boy discovered.

In the pursuit of making his own server, one boy learned about IP addresses, port forwarding and  technical issues that are related to computers and hosting a game server. A lot of valuable skills are learned through the process of ‘figuring it out’. As well, he learned really useful problem solving skills when he was forced to find solutions to unexpected problems.

This is a good example of learning “Beyond the Game”. The game itself is merely the stimulus for further learning (such as computers, internet networking, etc). Broader knowledge is acquired, as are skills related to computers, hardware or problem solving.

Gamers learn a lot, and an 11 year old boy who built his own server, is a good example of that!

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

A People’s History Of The FPS

-

A People’s History Of The FPS

FPS (first person shooters) is the financial bread and butter of computer game makers. As well, FPS is a benchmark of gaming’s evolution. Despite the industry’s over-saturation of FPS games, some high paced shooters stand out as literal “game changers”.

In the early days of the FPS gold rush, Myst (and sequel Raven) was billed as the game that would define the genre. Instead a rough hack and slash shooter called Doom (released a few months later). Doom followed in the style of the legendary Wolfenstein 3D and became the biggest selling game in the world.

Most importantly, Doom was a highly moddable game. This lends credibility to my own theories about user created content. Because Doom was able to be modified, users could create new versions of the game by remixing other ideas into the Doom style of game. Some good examples are Ghostbusters, Batman and the amazing Aliens mod.

Following the history of first person shooters gives a valuable insight into the way games have evolved. The success of games doesn’t only depend on the game’s quality, content and gameplay. Games which are able to be modified by the user, remixed and shared are games that have more potential to spark gamers’ interests. To me, that’s a crucial element – whether by design or inadvertently, games which can be user-modified are more likely to achieve greater success and longevity.

The rest of the “People’s History of the FPS” is available here:

Part 2 – http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/20/a-peoples-history-part-2-the-mod/

Part 3 – http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/21/a-peoples-history-of-the-fps-part-3-the-postmod/

Game designers please note – game modability is the key to gaming success.

Teachers please note – when students are modding games, they’re learning!

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

More hate for gamification

-

More hate for gamification

The problem with “critics” is that they’ve got lots of opinions … but don’t usually contribute anything productive (other than their verbosity) to the discussion. The problem with gamification is that it has become so popular so fast that critics are lining up to take a swipe and feel good about themselves.

Margaret Robinson’s article from 2010 on gamification goes down the same road as many other critics, including Bogost’s scathing attack (mentioned in the previous post). Robinson is determined that gamification focuses on the least important part of the game. She, like Bogost, says that badges and progress points aren’t intrinsic to the game at all.

But she’s wrong … they are important. Gamification isn’t about the game itself. Gamification is about how a game layer (game elements) can be used as motivators. If we look directly at games we can confidently say that games have motivators. One motivation is to win, to be the best. That motivation is represented by a scoreboard (leader boards can be used as a gamifying technique). If there’s no score or no winner, then many will find the game to be less fun.

Let’s make it more clear through an example. I’m a bit of a poker player. I enjoy poker and I play it when I can. It’s possible to play poker without money and without talking to the other players. But doing so would take away most of the fun … it would take away the motivation to play. See, that’s an intrinsic part of gaming. Sometimes the game itself is not that interesting, but socialising and gambling add to the enjoyment. I play poker so that I can experience the adrenaline rush of winning a big hand and, at the same time, talking with friends over a few beers.

Sometimes the game is just a tool. The mechanics of the game are not that important. This is what gamification represents. If we add a game layer to other tasks then we add a motivation. Gamification includes rewards, and it also includes socialising.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/gaming/2011/03/i_dont_want_to_be_a_superhero.html

More criticism. This time targeted at gaming guru Jane McGonigal. Through her Tedx talk, McGonigal talks about her heal and some experiences relating to that. Particularly she relates how she used gamification and roleplaying to help her recovery. 

Heather Chaplin, the author of the piece, says that games aren’t that fun and “gaming” isn’t for everyone. This is another common criticism of gaming and gamification – it isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution.

Well, no … of course not! Nobody who is a proponent of gamification is saying such a thing.

The truth is that we all DO play games. We play various games in our daily lives. Some people play cards, some collect coupons or air miles. Some play sport and others play tetris on their smartphone. Everyone plays games … but not everyone plays the same type of game. That’s not the same as saying not everyone finds games appealing, which is a falsehood.

Gamification covers this problem too by acknowledging multiple approaches to motivating people to play. Level up systems, for example, are a combination of small (like an incremental number) and big (like a major “level”). This is important because some people are motivated by different goals. Some people like to see the incremental gains (immediate, short term goals) and others prefer the larger gains (long term goals). Both work together to motivate. The same with leaderboards – global leaderboards motivate those who wish to be the best. Social leaderboards motivate people who want to try and beat their friends. Some people are motivated by certain badges. Others are motivated by completely different goals or achievements such as social status.

A great “real world” example is scouts. Scouts get badges for proving that they have a certain skill. Once they demonstrate a skill they get a patch or badge. The badges give a scout status in the community (global leaderboard) and amongst their friends (social leaderboard). When the scout gets a certain number of badges they can get a promotion (level up). 

All of these ideas are older than the internet and computers. Gamification isn’t creating something new, it’s just identifying systems and motivational strategies that have been around for centuries.

The main criticisms of gamification is that it doesn’t focus on the most important part of the game (ie the actual game) and that games don’t appeal to everyone. 

Complete rubbish! The game and the rewards for playing are equally important. Everyone is motivated by different rewards, so gamification is a multi-faceted approach which acknowledges such. Finally, whether critics want to admit it or not, everyone DOES play games. Grandma may not play shooter games like Call Of Duty, but she does collect the supermarket discount stamps (that’s a game) and she does play bridge on Thursdays (another game). She doesn’t collect stamps because she thinks its fun (it’s not fun at all). She collects the stamps because there’s a reward (free stuff). She doesn’t play bridge because she enjoys the technicalities and math involved in the game. She plays because she can chat with her friends and is motivated to beat them (and win status as a good player).

See, gamification is everywhere. 

It’s too easy to criticise something because it’s popular. It’s much harder to take a more measured approach to understanding that gamification offers real potential in education. Games and gamification are valid tools for motivating people to participate and learn … it’s sad that we still have to fight this war over justifying the place of gaming in our culture.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Persuasive Games: Exploitationware

-

Persuasive Games: Exploitationware

Ian Bogost’s vitriolic attack on gamification, in my opinion, is somewhat scathing and unwarranted. His premise is that gamification focuses too much on the game layer of points and systems used to attract and motivate – rather than focusing on the actual game itself. Bogost’s contention is how gamification is able to be used by advertising and companies to manipulate people. He refers to gamification as ‘exploitationware’ in an attempt to use rhetoric and word-smithing to position gamification as, well, evil. 

My contention with Bogost’s view is that he’s looking for reasons to hate gamification and the tenets it supports. While a game layer over the real world may not be everyone’s cup of tea, there’s definitely merit to the idea – as well as historical precedent to justify it.

Let’s talk about classroom learning for a moment. A teacher decides that she needs to motivate students to learn more. This is every teacher’s desire. So the teacher decides to use sticker systems, stamps and candy. The teacher also offers rewards to students who perform well … this is gamification! The idea of giving students stickers (10 stickers and you get a reward) is no different to frequent flyer miles, no different to 10+1 coffee coupons. Stamps and points are the same. Giving prizes for reading 10 books in a semester is another reward system. Adding a game layer to the real world has been a trend for over 50 years. It’s a method to motivate participants and provide incentive to play the game. Often, that game is for profit (fly the same airline, rather than their competitors, and you get benefits).

When we look at the history of using games in education, the game itself is rarely the motivation – the reward of winning, prizes, status and other symbols are the reason we play. Numerous studies have shown that education based computer games are a failure because they don’t motivate students to keep playing. This is something “dark lord” Game Zichermann has stated on numerous occasions; the best games are not games made by educators. 

Now, I concede that Bogost is concerned with how gamification is used to monetize (and profit from) participants. It’s a somewhat persuasive methodology. However it’s inevitable that private industries will jump on the gamification bandwagon. Business, and advertisers, are always early adopters of new ideas. If you want to know what works, look at what private companies are doing!

Rather than investing in positioning “serious games” and “persuasive games” and “gamification” against each other, I wish that Bogost would consider that games and game methodologies (including gamification) can all be applied to education with considerable benefits. All of us who are pushing for change in education are on the same team.

I’d rather we spent our time focusing on what’s good for kids in schools. It doesn’t matter if you hate the word ‘gamification’. What matters is that the ideas can be applied to learning. 

Dedicating a few thousand words to rhetoric is a waste of words.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

The Curiosity Cube

-

The Curiosity Cube

Sometimes the simple things are the most interesting. An ongoing social experiment called the Curiosity Cube is a social gaming project where players are faced with a giant cube which is made up of billions of smaller cubelets. Breaking cubelets accrues points and bonuses which can be spent on tools to make ‘digging’ through to the centre of the main cube more efficient.

The purpose of the game, simply, is to get to the centre and find out what’s inside. Interestingly, the developer has recently added the ability to actually add more cubelets (by paying money) to prevent the centre of the cube being accessed (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/190865/Peter_Molyneux_may_have_just_monetized_trolling.php) … this has been described as monetized trolling and may be a genius move that pits players against each other in a virtual war over accessing the cube. It’s a war which the developer will win, raking in money from a free game!

I’ve started playing on my iPhone and it’s fun. More importantly it will be interesting to observe what direction the game takes in the future.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Why gamers don’t learn more – Jonas Linderoth

-

*Apologies for this article not having a PDF link. The link was removed (or is broken). If readers would like a copy of the paper, please add a comment and I’ll make a copy available.

Linderoth writes a critique focusing on James Gee’s book “What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy” and concludes that good games do not necessarily facilitate good learning. This critique draws heavily on the Ecological approach developed by J. & E. Gibson. The ecological approach focuses on the idea of learning being a process of differentiation and distinction, not enrichment (as other learning theories would suggest).

As such, Linderoth positions games as a “perception-action” cycle. In a game, the player explores the environment and develops a perception of that environment. Based on that, the player takes action and then returns to perceiving changes and acting again. The player makes an exploratory act (to yield knowledge) and the performatory act (an action with expected results). 

Since, Linderoth states, that games have built in markers and that the game’s design facilitates the perception-action style. The game has numerous affordances which guide the player and don’t require learning how to differentiate. The case study used to prove this theory is observation of two players (a boy and a woman) playing LEGO Indiana Jones on a Playstation 3 console.

While I agree, to an extent, that there is some exploratory and performatory action within many game models, not all games fit within the rigid boundaries he has described. Many games, to my reasoning, are experimental. Games such as Minecraft (minecraft.net) are both experimental and exploratory.

Where Linderoth’s ideas fall short are the supposition that learning isn’t necessary. He claims that a player can easily distinguish between the pale background of a game facade and the shiny items that the player can interact with. However this is a very specific style of game which, Linderoth should have noted, is aimed at a young audience (one of the participants in his study was 8 years old). This kind of guided differentiation is essential for younger learners. These rules can be applied to more mature games, but as many other experts note that if a game’s obstacles are too simple, the game is not challenging and, thus, boring to play. Obvious affordances such as shiny objects are too overt for most games.

Rather than focusing on differentiation, it’s important to apply experiential learning and tacit knowledge to games. Players learn by trial and error, doing so gives them experience related to that game (which can sometimes be applied to other games). Through repetition the player acquires tacit knowledge of the game mechanics (how to play) and game world (information). They apply that knowledge to new situations (experimentation) to see if the learning they’ve already acquired can be applied to new situations. If not, they adapt and experiment further.

While Linderoth raises some good points, I can’t agree with the conclusion (especially based on such a limited observation) that gamers don’t learn through games. Gee, Ito, boyd, Seely Brown (and numerous other academics) have provided enormous data supporting learning within games.

Try applying Linderoth’s theories to World of Warcraft or even Minecraft … the results would be far from compelling. Besides, the contributors to WoW’s 95,000 page wiki might disagree that gamers don’t learn.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

“This Game Sucks”: How to Improve the Gamification of Education

-

“This Game Sucks”: How to Improve the Gamification of Education

Sarah Smith-Robbins looks at the idea of gamification and how it’s being applied to education.

Gamification is the application of game mechanics such as points, badges, and levels to non-game processes. Through the use of gamification techniques businesses (and potentially education) can motivate people to participate in the games that are being devised. This idea isn’t new. Education has been using points, status and achievements for a century. Private industry has used elements of gamification as well. Mileage cards, shopping stamps and coupon systems are all a form of gamification.

The problem, according to Smith-Robbins, is that that education is not very good at using game systems to motivate students. Part of the problem is that the game isn’t fully understood by those who are playing (ie students).

A game has three elements – a goal, obstacles, and is either collaborative or competitive. A goal is the win condition – the outcomes required to end the game. The obstacles are challenges of various difficulty the participant needs to overcome. Obstacles are a good thing because, as we all know, a game that’s too easy is no fun. Finally games are  cooperative (beating the game by working together) or competitive (beating the other players). 

Education, if it’s a game, isn’t using these elements very well. Is the goal “learning” or is the goal “getting a job”? What are the obstacles: critical thinking skills or getting past assessment (by any means necessary, including cheating)? Is education collaborative (working together to acquire knowledge) or competitive (fighting for better jobs and more money)?

If the game of education can’t be changed, then it can be improved by making the game clearer to the players (students). To quote the article:

  • Make goals clear, and explain how the course, major, or degree prepares learners to achieve those goals. Ensure that students align on the goals and want to achieve them.
    • Spend as much time in class and on the syllabus covering the importance of the learning goals as is spent explaining the grading system of the class.
    • When writing assignment descriptions, include a “How you can use this in the future” section.
  • Make progress transparent to each learner. Grades and assignment completion are not the only ways to measure progress toward achieving the goals.
    • Give students a way to track their progress on each learning goal of the class. An online checklist that students fill out on their own can help them stay on track.
    • Create commodities for desired behavior. For example, hand out poker chips to students who contribute in class; a student who cashes in ten poker chips earns a “Top Contributor” badge.
    • Add peer voting to class activities such as discussions and online forums. Allowing students to identify the contributions that they see as valuable will highlight good models for other students to follow, as well as provide positive feedback to the contributing student.
  • Think about your own game play. Reflection can reveal insights into innovations that can be leveraged in education.
    • Consider the game apps on your phone or iPad. How do you decide which to play and which to ditch? What makes a game “fun” to play?
    • Ask students which games they play and how they learned to play them. Talking about how we learn can help students improve their own techniques.
doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

A New Culture Of Learning

-

A New Culture Of Learning

John Seely Brown is quickly becoming a bit of an academic rolemodel for me. The ideas he presents are in step with my own thinking. My research is going to look closely at his works and apply some of his theories directly to gaming – particularly Minecraft. Brown and Thomas’ book is an exploration on learning in the digital environment. Arc-of-LIfe Learning – Brown begins his exploration by looking at some examples of learning. A few case studies are used as an illustration of how learning has been achieved beyond educational institutes. Kids and adults have shown that they are learning through interaction, discovery and having fun.

Briefly, A New Culture Of Learning begins with some discussion about culture and how culture shifts due to technology’s influence. Traditional ideas (such as the classroom) are a mechanist approach where learning is a series of steps to be mastered. The focus is on the end result, the product, not the process of learning. This view is obsolete and, according to the book, a more environmental view (including digital networks) should be taken. These learning environments promote a more organic learning process. The crux of this book is the very idea that technology has created an avenue for a new culture of learning to develop; a more environmental, holistic learning approach with technology as an ingrained part of that learning.

To achieve this goal, there must be change. The infrastructure of the internet has grown exponentially faster than any technology advances before it. The biggest realisation is that culture has changed from static (information as a one way street) to a participatory medium. Information shifts and changes as we interact with it, share it and remix it across the internet. We participate and interact with knowledge in a way that has never been possible before.

The result is a new way of learning. Through play and imagination we can change how we think of the learning process. No more memorising. Instead, information absorption through the process of engaging with information and the world around us. Playing is a powerful learning tool.

Enter here the collective. I like this word … collective. It’s not community, it’s not collaboration. It’s more like bees in a hive. There’s a certain busy buzziness and “many as one” feeling to the word. The collective is a way to describe how we interact as online groups. The focus is on original content. Through peer-to-peer learning we can share and compare information and learn from each other. Skills and talents are unleashed as a kind of peer amplifier. From this emerges a collective in which we share knowledge and produce original content.  Creating and moulding information.

There’s no middle or core in a collective, and collectives improve with size and diversity (they scale well). participation doesn’t mean contribution but can be as simple as following a conversation, liking a blog post or “lurking” in a group that is creating something interesting. Collectives are innovative.

Indwelling

When a gamer plays a game hundreds of times they become familiar with the practices and ideas and processes of the game. It becomes engrained. The same happens with any form of action that is repeated continuously. This is referred to as indwelling – where a practice or idea becomes second nature. It’s an adaptive process, meaning that the habits learned are flexible and responsive to change. This relates to the notion of tacit knowledge, which comes from a lifetime of experience doing something which has become second nature. It’s knowledge that wasn’t explicitly learned, but has been acquired.

People who play games or spend time online are indwellers. They develop vast amounts of knowledge an information.

Gamer Disposition

As well as indwelling, gamers have a “gamer disposition”. This disposition is using resources and experimenting to find solutions to problems inside a game – such as a way to complete a task. However gamer disposition isn’t always about the most efficient way of completing a task. Sometimes gamers look for the most unique way, or elaborate way. Having solved the task already, they might repeat the task to complete it differently.  Sophisticated solutions are often preferred over routine ones.

Gamer disposition characteristics are

  • Keep an eye on the bottom line – gamers like to improve. They like to be evaluated and compared to other gamers. 
  • Understand the power of diversity – games require teamwork, so teams have a mix of talents and abilities. Gamers don’t think about how good they are but think about how good the group is and their role as part of that group.
  • Thrive on change – games aren’t static. If they were, gamers would lose interest quickly. The seek out change.
  • See learning as fun – this is a key characteristic. Games require learning and gamers love to learn the rules or systems involved in a game. As well, they love to solve puzzles and overcome obstacles (a core tenet of gaming). They convert knowledge into action.
  • Live on the edge –  gamers seek out alternative methods or strategies for completing tasks. They aren’t satisfied with mundane solutions, but try to find elaborate ways of finishing tasks. They desire to push the boundaries in order to discover something that deepens their understanding of the game.

Finally, Seely Brown and Thomas put together their thoughts in the form of knowing, making and playing. Experts know everything about their given topic. The understand the ‘what’ their topic is about. They don’t just know information, but they have a deep understanding (often through practice) of their area of knowledge. By doing something, such as hands-on activities, people are making. Building, creating content and making connections gives meaning to content and information. They are learning by doing. Finally, is the importance of play. The idea of ‘playing’ is a recurring theme in Seely Brown’s work. Through play we are able to discover and experiment, fail and test outcomes. It’s problem solving, or as Seely Brown explains it, riddling one’s way through a problem.

The world, they say, is constantly changing. This represents a state of flux which is a good thing. Flux inspires the challenge to learn and acquire knowledge. Through the many ideas brought together in the book (indwelling, playing to learn, collectives and imagination) the internet – and gaming – creates a space where new culture emerges. It’s a culture of collective inquiry that harnesses information and transforms it into something we can play and experiment with. This environment is a place which demands imagination because “where imaginations play, learning happens”.

Note: Due to time constrains, this is an abridged review and doesn’t encompass the entirety of the book.

Addendum: Apologies to readers of this blog who might have been mislead by any statements in this blog that have been poorly attributed; particularly the last comment “where imaginations play, learning happens”. When I wrote this book review, I didn’t use quotation marks around this statement, which implied that I had said it myself. This is not the case. I had simply forgotten to attribute it correctly. I have quoted other points from the book itself, but failed to quote this one (and also mis-quoted the authors by saying ‘imagination plays’ instead of ‘imaginations play’). This was unintentional. For a full reading of the twitter discussion that followed from a failure to correctly attribute a quote, see the pingback in comments below.

Scroll to Top