computer

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

Three Papers by Jesper Juul

-

Three Papers by Jesper Juul – A brief synopsis of his recent works relating to computer game design.

*Note, all of the papers below are available for free from the Jesper Juul’s website (linked above).

Paper 1 – Zero-Player Games

Juul’s analysis of gaming looks closely at the players themselves and how player is defined. Importantly, the paper shows that there’s a distinction between games and gamers, and also, that games do not require a player (the player-centric model).

Zero-player games are games which require no significant human interaction for the game to be played. These are divided into four categories:

  1. Setup only games – games where the player starts the game and observes (without interaction) the remainder of the game.
  2. Games played by AIs – simply, games where the computer (AI) assumes the role of the player.
  3. Solved games – Games played by computers with the purpose of solving it – such as figuring out guaranteed winning moves, etc.
  4. Hypothetical games – non implemented games designed to describe or examine a question.

By understanding how games can be played without a player, paradoxically, the player can be more easily understood. Juul concludes with five distinct player traits:

  1. Players have continued agency
  2. Players as humans
  3. Players as temporal beings
  4. Players as having intentionality
  5. Players as having aesthetic preferences

Juul’s paper shows that a distinction can be made between game (artifact) and games (the activity). As well, it gives a strong rebuttal to the dominance of the player-centric model, since it doesn’t actually centre on players and overlooks their aesthetic preferences.

Paper 2 – Easy to use and incredibly difficult: On the mythical border between interface and gameplay

Interface and game play are seen, by many as Juul suggests, as vastly different. He argues that there’s no distinct border between the two. Interface is the tools (software and hardware) used to affect the game state. Gameplay is the core activity of the game.

The analysis focuses on defining the two elements and understanding how they have been used in game design. Importantly, Juul looks closely at the relationship between interface and gameplay, then compares their realisation in various games.

He concludes that gameplay is usually a simple premise or idea made challenging by the interface. The purpose of games is to be fun. Doing so often requires challenging the user. There’s a lot of fluidity between interface and gameplay. Because games are entertaining they are not always designed to be efficient. Intentionally adding inefficient elements to the gameplay or interface increases difficulty. This is a desired effect.

Most importantly, games provide an opportunity for the gamer to improve certain skills.

Blizzard uses the term skill differentiation to describe how requiring a range of skills allows a player to grow: a real time strategy game can have “twitch” skills, multitasking, strategic thinking, understanding of economy, knowledge of a map, and so on, as skill differentiators.

This means that difficulties of interface or gameplay simply become a skills hurdle for players to jump. The gameplay and interface in games is often blurred and, as games become more innovating, is redefined.

Paper 3 – The Fear of Failing? The many meanings of difficulty in video games

The role of failure in games is interesting and important to consider. Juul explores two important questions regarding failure.

  • What is the role of failure in games?
  • Do players prefer games where they do not feel responsible for failing?

There are two approaches to looking at “winning” in games.

  • Goal oriented – where the focus is on winning, which should be made as easy as possible
  • Aesthetic perspective – where there should be a reasonable combination of challenge and variation

Added to that are the methods of punishing players for failure.

  • Energy punishment – loss of energy, usually leading to life punishment
  • Life punishment – losing a “life”, usually bringing the player closer to game termination
  • Game termination – ending the game, forcing the player to start from the beginning
  • Setback punishment – making the player “replay” the game from a certain point

When a player fails, they might attribute the failure to three possible causes.

  • Personal – personal traits, skills or disposition (eg. I didn’t move fast enough)
  • Entity – the characteristics such as the game elements (eg. The enemy in game is too powerful)
  • Circumstance – luck, chance or other transient causes (eg. My fingers slipped off the controller)

Juul developed an empirical study, based on an earlier study by Malone in 1982, to test how players responded to different punishments (energy punishment and life punishment). The study concluded that players prefer to feel personally responsible for failure when they play a game. When players failed, then succeeded, they gave a higher rating for the game, reflecting that they felt more satisfied. This is in comparison to players who didn’t fail at all and players who failed too often (both groups gave less positive reviews of the game).

From the overall analysis, four observations were made about games and failure.

  1. The player does not want to fail (feels sad, inadequate)
  2. Failing makes the player reconsider their strategy (making the game more interesting)
  3. Winning provides gratification
  4. Winning without failing leads to dissatisfaction

This is an interesting outcome. Gamers want games to be difficult. While they hope to win, gamers will fail and feel personally responsible. Once they’ve reviewed their strategy and tried again, they will eventually win. The gamer feels gratification and is satisfied with the game.

Failure in games creates a sense of depth. Failure forces the player to re-evaluate strategies and practice their skills. Doing so reflects improvement and success (overcoming adversity).

A game should be neither too easy, nor too hard. Failure adds content!

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Assessing Higher Order Thinking in Video Games

-

Assessing Higher Order Thinking in Video Games

In his paper Assessing Higher Order Thinking In Video Games, John Rice draws the conclusion that educational computer games, such as Revolution, which was developed by MIT’s Media Lab (the game itself will be discussed in a future post).

With the increased global interest in gaming, educators are looking more closely at how computer games can be used in the classroom. Teachers seem to prefer edutainment style games which offer a “drill and kill” style of repetition practice. There is a wide spectrum of games being used (some ostensibly educational, some commercial but with educational potential) and amongst those games levels of “thinking skill” are required. Some games require only lower order thinking (drill and kill) while other games are more immersive, offering the ability for players to use higher order thinking skills. Rice refers to these as cognitive virtual interactive environments (VIEs).

The benefit of cognitive VIEs is to address the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy – particularly application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. VIEs are virtual (three dimensional) environments which require extensive interaction (reading, clicking, manipulating the environment). Most often, MMORPGs are the best representation of VIEs. Games such as World of Warcraft, Sims, Civilization can be considered examples which fit the genre.

While still being ‘edutainment’ Rice has developed a series of qualifiers, in the form of a rubric, which ascertain whether a game has the elements required to challenge higher order thinking skills.

Screen Shot 2013-04-04 at 8.57.59 PM

The qualifiers, 20 in total, are scored and graded according to a viability scale.

Screen Shot 2013-04-04 at 9.00.03 PM

Rice concludes that a game which scores 15 or more is “highly probable” to encourage higher order thinking skills in users. He concludes that VIEs are a viable as educational tools as long as they can be judged as having the ability to challenge higher order thinking skills. He is particularly impressed with “Revolution” and asserts it to be a high quality educational tool.

In reading this paper I’ve drawn some interesting conclusions myself. First is a criticism of Rice’s approach. While I agree that interactive gaming (particularly virtual environments) show enormous potential as learning tools, I cannot help but be alarmed that Rice’s approach to assessing such games is too prescriptive. The rubric is neither practical nor logical within the context of gaming. Computer games, and the culture created by them, shift constantly and are subject to trends which cannot be predicted. A game like Minecraft, arguably a teaching tool with enormous potential, scores poorly on such a rubric.

The generic codes and conventions of computer games are not static. They fluctuate and with each technology leap, there will be a noticeable shift in computer game standards. The games of today were inconceivable just 5 years ago. Computer games 5 years from now are equally difficult to predict.

While it’s important to recognise the value of gaming in modern culture and education, we must resist the temptation to rigidly define game boundaries.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Teachers want access to more technology in the classroom

-

Teachers want access to more technology in the classroom

A nation wide survey conducted last year discovered that teachers want more technology in the classroom. Access to computers seems to be high and a lot of teachers are using websites, images and other media in their daily classroom routine.

However the problem, according to the survey, is that teachers feel they don’t have access to the “right” kinds of technology. The biggest barrier to technology, unsurprisingly, was budget constraints.

Teachers have their hearts in the right place. Most teachers cite ‘motivating students’ as their reason for wanting more technology in the classroom.

What surprised me was that 943% of teachers believed that interactive whiteboards ‘enrich’ classroom education. I understand the limitations of classroom technology and also the often low levels of training teachers have in using technology in the classroom. Particularly, teachers aren’t always well versed in areas like the internet and social media. However, I cannot fathom why interactive whiteboards (a 20+ year old technology) is still desired in a classroom environment.  I had access to them over 10 years ago and nobody in my school was interested in using them. Their application, quite honestly, is limited.

Overcoming budget is an understandable problem. One idea might be to apply a BYOT (bring your own technology) attitude. Allowing students to bring mobile devices to class – and use them directly for learning – will help raise motivation levels. Also, students are more likely to enjoy using computers (internet and social media) than they are using interactive whiteboards.

Teachers should start moving towards a more participatory methodology for learning. Provide students with the basic ideas or questions and let them use the resources that they’re comfortable with (online environments) and it might be surprising what they can produce.

Perhaps the problem in modern education is that we’re too focused on telling students what tools they can use to solve problems (such as learning, knowledge acquisition and skills building). Instead, let them choose their own tools. Why can’t a pyramid be modeled in Minecraft? Why can’t student presentations be done via youtube?

The best part is that teachers don’t even have to think of tools that students might choose. Students will do that! Technology? Not a problem, students will use the technology they have and whatever they’re comfortable with. Teenagers are happy to work when doing so on their own terms. Whatever students are studying, just give them core ideas and let them figure out the rest. Study after study proves that student will work when they work for themselves.

Motivation goes up. Creativity goes up. Original content and content creation goes up … all without the teacher lifting a finger.

Win!

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Teachers, Students, Digital Games: What’s the Right Mix?

-

Teachers, Students, Digital Games: What’s the Right Mix?

There’s lots of buzz around computer games in education now. Various studies are being conducted to ascertain how much access kids have to computers, how often they’re being used in class and how effective games are as a learning tool. 

While more and more teachers are starting to use games in the classroom, there’s concern that tech resources aren’t being used effectively.

What’s more important is drawing a line between “educational games” and everything else. COTS computer games (according to Zichermann) are much more suited to educational purposes than education-centric games. 

Further, this kind of analysis doesn’t consider related factors such as social networking, which is a natural extension of modern gaming culture.

The shift away from an educational focus is gaining momentum. Even Prensky, known for his loathsome “digital native” theory, acknowledges the attitude that learning is becoming a background to achieving goals. This is the direction which education should be taking – how are students learning beyond classroom walls? By playing games, sharing and socialising, and being a part of a community, students are learning valuable knowledge and skills … which is secondary to having fun and hanging out.

The best learning occurs when we forget we’re learning at all.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Does Game Based Learning Work?

-

Does Game Based Learning Work? Short answer: Yes. Blunt’s analysis of three studies draws together enough empirical data to suggest that there is a correlation between gaming and test scores.

The idea of the study was simply to discover whether COTS (commercial, off-the shelf) games facilitate improved learning in a classroom environment. The results strongly suggest that there’s benefits to combining gaming and learning. Blunt used a theoretical framework which considered multiple concepts:

  • ARCS (attention, relevance, confidence, satisfaction). This model identifies four areas in which learning is broken into parts. The theory is that students require motivation as well as practical examples of how a system works (which the students can use to help their understanding).
  • Good Video Game Design. Of particular importance is the computer game’s quality. The game must have rules (restrictions and generic codes), goals & objectives, be challenging and be engaging.

Blunt conducted three separate studies at a university level. All of the subjects were business related – business, economics, management. Each subject had a corresponding COTS computer game which fit the curriculum. As a study control, the subjects that were chosen had two or more class groups. One group was allowed to play computer games as a part of the curriculum, the other class (which was learning exactly the same content) didn’t have access to a computer game – ie it was a standard class. At the end of the course, students were given standardised tests.

The results were very encouraging. The classes which included computer games had a much higher average score and more “A” level results than classes without the games. Also, classes with computer games had no students fail the course, while the other classes had a number of fails. The results also considered other matrices such as gender and ethnicity. Overall, computer games seemed to have almost no discernible affect on gender or ethnicity. The only other significant factor was age. Students under 40 years of age performed significantly better with computer games. Students over 41 didn’t benefit from using computer games in class.

Blunt concludes that his results are significant, however the problem he is trying to address is the lack of empirical data which can be used to prove a causal-comparative relationship between computer games and learning.

Simulations. We have plenty of empirical studies about simulations over the last 25 years. We know simulations work. We know simulations improve performance. We know simulations improve learning. Yet, I challenge anyone to show me a literature review of empirical studies about game- based learning. There are none. We are charging head-long into game-based learning without knowing if it works or not. We need studies. – Dr J. Cannon-Bowers

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Findings from the Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey: Is Larry Cuban Right?

-

Findings from the Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey: Is Larry Cuban Right?

Note: This article links directly to a PDF file.

Becker attempts to review Cuban’s initial findings that computers are largely incompatible with classroom teaching. His data, 16 years after Cuban’s initial study, asserts that there are conditions under which the likelihood of computer usage can dramatically increase.

However, I was unable to agree with Becker’s views. He did find Cuban’s assertions to still be correct.  Becker claimed, though, that computer usage could improve. My issue with this finding that there were too many caveats required to satisfy Becker’s claims. He stated that a classroom needed at least 5 computers and all students needed an average amount of technical skill. As well, the teacher needs to be highly proficient in using constructionist teaching pedagogy. 

While this may not be too difficult to accomplish, there are too many “ifs” to be satisfied. If the computers are fully functional and all software is up-to-date. If teachers have time to write a computer based curriculum. If time within the curriculum permits computer usage (as all teachers know, computer-based tasks take longer). If the teacher is skilled in developing curriculum that can maximise learning using computers.

Once all those “ifs” can be satisfied, then perhaps computers can make a dramatic difference in classroom education. However it’s still a case of shoehorning computers into classrooms. 

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Singularity University

-

Singularity University

What we know about computing and technology is doubling at an exponential rate. The computer that required a warehouse now fits in our pocket. In 25 years that computer will fit into a single blood cell. In 7-8 doublings, solar power efficiency can go from a few percent to 100%. It’s incredible to know that in 20 years from how the technological advance will be beyond our current comprehension. Computers will be molecular and organic.

The singularity university, backed by nasa and google, is an exciting project that looks at technologies and helps drive the exponential changes in our ever increasing computerised society.

More on the Singularity University:

http://singularityu.org/

http://www.singularityweblog.com/ray-kurzweil-pbs-immortality/ – Ray Kurzweil talks in detail about SU and technology

Scroll to Top