This is the second iteration of my final video project for EDUC 8842, Principles of Distance Learning. The first version of the video is still my favorite one, as I believe it maintains the true message of Serious Games without additional distractions. However, since it did not meet the requirements set forth in the rubric for this project, I re-did it. The revision forced a change in the overall message, and it now includes a voice-over narration and some additional video footage of yours truly. There is a compelling reason that I do not appear in front of the camera: I am not photogenic, and cameras do not like me. Consequently, I have found that the most effective way to keep from being included in the photo or video is to be the camera operator!
The rationale for the re-do is that there is a requirement in the rubric for me to demonstrate that I know how to use a video camera. Let it be known that the camera in the footage at the end is one of mine (we actually own four of these), and I indeed am usually the one operating it! I own a video production company which specializes in location sound and video recording and sound reinforcement services, and have been doing video in one form or another since 1974! My company shoots more than 50 live events annually throughout the Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia region. These range from corporate meetings and training events to community theater productions, professional and amateur dance company productions, school concerts and plays, graduations, sports events, and other community events. We do weddings for close friends and family only, as we don't need nor do we want the aggravation of wedding videography. If I want combat pay, I can get that elsewhere and draw far less fire in the process!
Yes, I know how to use a video camera (and editing tools), sound equipment, and many other technical toys. Everything you see in the video is owned by my company, Audio-Video Freelance, Inc.. There is a lot more that was not there on that particular shoot...she who dies with the most toys wins!
Anyway, let me stop the rant and start the video...here is the second version for your viewing pleasure:
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Static to Dynamic Educational Technology Evolution
This project has been very interesting for me, as I am in the midst of an organization that is very fond of its static traditions. The majority of our courses are still taught via platform instruction, with a live instructor standing in front of a class full of live(?) students using PowerPoint. There is some movement forward, however: the use of Centra software to conduct synchronous courses over the Intranet, as well as the use of BlackBoard for some of the standard mandated training courses is a small step forwards. The evolution from VHS tapes to DVDs represents a step sideways, as many of these are recordings of guest speakers who cannot be present, but whose presentation has been taped at some time in the past. It's still a talking head, but just at a slightly higher resolution. Sigh.
The evolution from the old computer-based training that gave us the term "page-turners" still lives, with the advent of web-based training courses that do the same thing, but also include some Captivate demos and Flash sequences just to liven things up. Still static. Still boring.
We also invested a huge sum of money into our video-conferencing network. Not only have there always been reliability issues with this system, but the quality still isn't that good, and the end result is slightly better than no training at all, but it can result in a frustrating experience for both instructor and students, It's fine for short meetings, but it isn't the best option for classes, but since we bought it, we must justify its continued existence by using it (the self-fulfilling prophesy of technology).
In almost all of our classrooms, the whiteboards have been either replaced, or are now supplemented by a SmartBoard (TM). As a student whose eyesight is not what it was 25 years ago, I find them hard to read, and when used as a display for PowerPoint, they are particularly challenging to me as they are very difficult to read, and complex diagrams are illegible. These devices replaced front projection systems that were much easier to read, although they were much more tempermental to use. The only read advantage is that they don't involve the use of smelly markers and don't have to be cleaned using vile substances whose odors linger in the room for at least 24 hours after the whiteboards are cleaned.
For the future, there is hope: a few weeks ago I attended a technology demonstration of a product called KZO (the company is called KZOInnovations http://www.kzoinnovations.com/ ). Their product represents the best combination of semi-static to dynamic products I've seen to date: they begin with an archive of videos, all of which have been indexed and cross-referenced for searchability. Users can request either an entire video clip, or just a specific portion thereof for viewing. If it is a presentation, the product supports a sychronous connection to visual products like PowerPoint or other images. Static so far, but here's where it gets good: KZO supports a text chat option that allows viewers to post questions about the video they've seen to the point of contact for that video. Unless otherwise specified, this becomes part of the permanent record of the video clip. Users can also add their own observations and comments, building a wiki for this item. Almost dynamic...or at least a good start!
Several major corporations use this product for their employee training activities, as standard content can be created for employees to access when it is convenient for them to do so from their desktops or homes. Once completed, the product transfers the record of completion to the Learning Management System used by the organization. For those of us in the training world who have to occasionally produce mandated training for large numbers of people and keep records, this is a VERY COOL feature!
I've recommended that we take a good look at this product and we are scheduling a demonstration in-house for later in the Spring. I see this as also a tool for the delivery of asynchronous training, and could be used in conjunction with Centra courses as well as independantly.
In addition to adding collaboration and multimedia tools, I am also looking at incorporating serious games, simulations, visualizations, and even virtual worlds to our training mix. Doing this with no budget and a staff of one is a bit of a challenge...however, I've asked for additional support and have developed a roadmap and business plan for integrating these new technologies, and so far no-one has told me "NO" nor have they said other discouraging words...I've learned that that is what passes for tacit support, so I am moving forward with several ideas that will incorporate games and simulations. Once one is done and in use, I predict that demand will spike as everyone sees it and wants that (or something similar) for their courses. That is how evolution happens in my workplace: motivated by greed and envy rather than by vision and creativity. Oh, well...it may be dysfunctional, but it's home.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Annotated Video References
Annotated References
Gunter, G., Kenny, R., & Vick, E. (2008, October). Taking educational games seriously: Using the RETAIN model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(5/6), 511-537. Retrieved January 7, 2009, doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9073-2
This qualitative article provides the back story of the development of an evaluation rubric that can be used to provide standardized assessment of educational games. The evaluation model is based upon a synthesis of Keller’s (1983) ARCS model of learner engagement and Gagne’s (1985) Nine Events of Learning model. Using a one-shot case study research model, Gunter, Kelly and Vick use their model to evaluate two popular children’s educational software titles.
Their conclusions are not particularly surprising, given that their sample consisted of only two subjects. I also felt that the article focused mostly on the development of the rubric and not enough on its application. Although helpful, given the general lack of guidance on these matters, the researchers’ rubric does not prove to be an unimpeachable model, merely a useful tool that applies a good dose of common sense.
Lim, C. (2008, November). Spirit of the game: Empowering students as designers in schools?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 996-1003. Retrieved February 9, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_1.x
The companion article to Prensky (2008) cited below, this qualitative article uses a phenomenological method to examine the culture of gaming, and sets the stage by exploring the reasons that video games are so interesting to children. Among the factors cited are the elements of immersion into a new world, as well as the factor of engagement by the player(s) who use critical thinking skills to overcome increasingly challenging situations.
Lim also cites the fact that players are able to take risks and engage in new patterns of thinking and behaviors without the traditional consequences that doing so in a normal classroom setting would incur. He then points out the fact that games in schools traditionally do not work because the expectation of maintaining a standard power structure and an orderly and structured schedule tend to override spontaneous learning opportunities, such as those provided by gaming.
He ends with the conclusion that in order to have success in using games in schools, students should design the games that their peers will play in order to learn predetermined lessons and knowledge.
Liu, E., & Lin, C. (2009, January). Developing evaluative indicators for educational computer games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 174-178. Retrieved February 9, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00852.x
This article was interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which was their mixed methods approach that included a
The conclusions of this article constitute a useful resource for developers of educational games, as the factors identified are all important characteristics of good games in general, and particularly good educational games.
Moschini, E. (2006, September). Designing for the smart player: usability design and user-centred design in game-based learning. Digital Creativity, 17(3), 140-147. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.
Another case study in the qualitative tradition, this article describes the creative process involved in creating a single serious game designed to teach information gathering, libraries and resources, bibliographic research, and discouraging plagarism to undergraduate and graduate students. The article explores the iterative process involved in the game’s development, as well as the changing demographics of game players. She points out that many gamers today are older, and a significant percentage of them are female, defying the image of the young adolescent male gamer.
Key to the iterative process Moschini describes is the use of target student audiences to playtest the game and provide feedback to the game designers. Each iteration of game development incorporates this end-user feedback, and the end product (still in the final development stages as the article was published) should be a serious game that engages the players and provides the underlying learning process in an effective and memorable manner.
Pannese, L., & Carlesi, M. (2007, May). Games and learning come together to maximise effectiveness: The challenge of bridging the gap. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 438-454. Retrieved January 24, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00708.x
This article was a mixed methods study, incorporating several specific case studies of using serious games to support corporate training initiatives. Learner outcomes and reactions were captured and quantified, and the results are presented for the reader.
Because their target audiences were all adult professionals, many of whom did not have a high degree of computer skills, several of the games cited were simply verbal branching scenarios that led the user down a decision tree path to the proper conclusion and result. As a practicing human performance professional, I was impressed at the level of analysis the researchers put into their training efforts, and was gratified to note that their results were positive and showed good outcomes.
Prensky, M. (2008, November). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004-1019. Retrieved February 9, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_2.x
Prensky’s article picks up where Lim’s article left off: should students be designing games for other students? His take on this continues the qualitative phenomenological tradition of Lim, and concludes early and often that not only should they design games, but they have already done so in many cases, which he cites. Additionally, he points out that most games designed by adults tend to re-create the status quo of power, and “smell like school”.
and gives a number of examples of different approaches and solutions for doing so. He ends with
an extensive series of guidelines for game design, as well as a host of possible scenarios to
provide students with incentives to develop games.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Advance Organizer
Although a bit busy, the idea of this advance organizer is to remind the instructor of what is truly important in the design and delivery of good distance learning courses! Please note that at the very top level one of the first and most important parts of a good DE system is the technical support thereof. Without tech support, nothing that uses technology more complex than pens and paper will succeed.
It also helps to have good design and to have done a good needs analysis of the target audience(s) for the courses to be taught. That is just plain common sense. However, I have been caught on tape observing that "If common sense were really common, everyone wouldl have it."
Instructor support and comfort with both the technology and the materials and subject matter are also vital--remember the tech support? New instructors need not only a speed dial connection to tech support, but they should also have a mentor who is experienced in teaching on-line. The instructor serves as an integral character in the course, but in the role of facilitator and curator rather than pedagogue. The ultimate goal is to assist the students in becoming a learning community, where they gather and develop knowledge about the subject from readings and discussions with others.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Video References
References
Gunter, G., Kenny, R., & Vick, E. (2008, October). Taking educational games seriously: using the RETAIN model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(5/6), 511-537. Retrieved January 7, 2009, doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9073-2
Lim, C. (2008, November). Spirit of the game: Empowering students as designers in schools?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 996-1003. Retrieved February 9, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_1.x
Liu, E., & Lin, C. (2009, January). Developing evaluative indicators for educational computer games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 174-178. Retrieved February 9, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00852.x
Moschini, E. (2006, September). Designing for the smart player: usability design and user-centred design in game-based learning. Digital Creativity, 17(3), 140-147. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.
Pannese, L., & Carlesi, M. (2007, May). Games and learning come together to maximise effectiveness: The challenge of bridging the gap. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 438-454. Retrieved January 24, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00708.x
]
Prensky, M. (2008, November). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004-1019. Retrieved February 9, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_2.x
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
