Study the Wii for Your Ph.D.

Reporter Joanna Smith has an article today in The Toronto Star about Future Play 2007, held last week at Algoma University College.

Everyone was there to talk and learn about video games and their psychological, sociological, political, technical, metaphorical – what have you – dimensions, which are all lumped together in the emerging field of game studies.

That’s right: video game studies, which is busy establishing itself as a bona fide academic field.

Scholars might spend hours discussing avatars – the identities people adopt in online virtual reality games – but they are doing so in post-secondary institutions, peer-reviewed journals and in societies of the learned, such as the Digital Games Research Association, which held a large conference in Tokyo this year, or the fledgling Canadian Game Studies Association, which publishes a mostly online journal called Loading.

Smith goes on to briefly discuss the history of game studies, including Huizinga’s Homo Ludens and his discussions of “the magic circle.”

Professors mentioned prominently in the article included Mia Consalvo over at Ohio University and author of the new book, Cheating: Gaining Advantage in Videogames; Jennifer Jenson at York University and co-President of the Canadian Game Studies Association; and Jayne Gackenbach over at Grant MacEwen College in Edmonton who is studying effects videogames have on dreams.

References:
Smith, J. (2007, November 24). Pursuing a Ph.D.? Considered Wii studies? The Toronto Star. [Online]. Retrieved November 24, 2007 from: http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/279372

Stay Off the Grass: Bypassing Content Filters for Educational Gaming & Web 2.0

I recall hearing a story (somewhere down the line … probably in a college lecture) about an architect hired to design a cluster of buildings. Once built and ready for sidewalks connecting the entrances, he ordered grass seeded between the buildings and delayed sidewalk construction a while. In a few months the grass grew, and people going in and out of the buildings made their own pathways to the doors. At that point, the architect ordered the sidewalks constructed … following the elegant and efficient pathways created by the people.

I remember that story every time I walk through a college or school campus and see paths through the grass where people follow more efficient routes than the sidewalks. At UNT, despite signs pleading with students to stay off the grass, and rope barriers cutting off students’ favorite route between the two main education buildings, the powers that be finally relented and built a sidewalk for the most popular shortcut.

What a powerful idea it was for the architect to simply wait and let the people … the end users … figure out the best places for the sidewalks to go! Think of the money saved, and the aesthetics involved. What a powerful analogy the story is for educational technology, too. “Sidewalks,” or connections to information and resources, must be built for organizations. But, when the connections are dictated without input from those using the connections, efficiency suffers. And those connecting to resources within an organization (“walking to the doors between buildings”) often find their own ways that are more efficient than is what dictated from above.

This helps explain the ongoing conundrum Web 2.0 tools face in academic environments, including instructional gaming. I was reminded of the sidewalk story while catching up with some blogs recently. In late October, uber-blogger Robert Scoble noted during a discussion with his son’s high school buddies that Facebook and MySpace were blocked at school. This didn’t stop them, of course, and Scoble notes various tips the teens had to get around the filters. Scoble himself simply turns on his Verizon wireless data card and bypasses the filter altogether. Fooey on over-controlling administrators, Scoble says.

What is most interesting to me are the attitudes people have toward school filters. They follow the same patterns some people have in their attitudes toward instructional videogames in schools. Namely, some folks think that using the Web for anything besides serious purposes is a waste of time, and should not be allowed in school. The problem is, they want to dictate where to pave the sidewalks. What is “serious” is what they define as serious; anything else should be banned.

Reading the many comments Scoble received is more interesting than his original post. Some folks just don’t get it. One poster wrote: “I’m sorry, but why should we be encouraging kids to circumvent school policies?” Another suggested time would be better spent with teachers than on Facebook. Scoble pointed out that Ray Ozzie, Walt Mossberg, and Joi Ito are all on Facebook. But, because the school blocks the site, accessing these experts in their respective fields while at school is “inappropriate.” He sums up: “But, no, you keep thinking that Facebook is just for fooling around.” Ouch.

The arguments go downhill from there. They should access these sites on their time, not the teacher’s time. Scoble counters: they’re still blocked during recess, before and after school, and that is his son’s time. Teaching your son to circumvent policies he disagrees with may lead him to disregard policies on drugs and guns, too. Scoble dismisses this argument: “You think Wikipedia even belongs in the same sentence as guns and drugs. Discussion over.” Some sided with Scoble, stating that learning to circumvent filters is a good life skill to pick up in school.

The issue of filters and their impediment to teaching was brought up earlier in November by Miguel Guhlin. The Web 2.0 product at issue was Google Docs. An administrator on the Texas technology directors’ listserv noted that Google Docs was used by both teachers and students in their district, but had recently been blocked. Miguel has been railing against folks preventing the adoption of important technologies in school settings for years, and he used this opportunity to again deride those demanding we all stay on the sidewalk.

Finally, a poster on the Serious Games listserv, which is filled with academics and industry professionals, noted, in a tone of bemused frustration, that a game he had worked on for a school was now blocked at the very same school.

-*-

I have written two articles for TechEdge that address techniques students use for bypassing filters. These were aimed at helping educate teachers and administrators who are responsible for preventing students in their care from accessing inappropriate sites, and giving them the sense that filters are far from perfect. In the second article, I noted that educators are often more frustrated by the filters than their students. One teacher confided he used his own laptop and Internet connection to bypass the filter at school, essentially following the route Scoble suggested.

Here are some things I’ve noted in comments over on Miguel’s blog and in my articles:

1. Filters are in schools because Congress says they should be. The Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) dictates that schools receiving federal funds must block objectionable content. It will literally take an act of Congress to get rid of filtering, so don’t hold your breath. Besides, it is “for the children,” and consequently few would want to vote against it. Never mind if it really is beneficial for children, or in fact detrimental. It has been labeled as “for the children,” ergo est. Folks peeved at filters should aim their frustration at politicians, not school personnel.
2. Most filters used by schools are run by the big filtering companies. When something is blocked, for better or worse, rightly or wrongly, save your ire for those companies, not the hapless school administrators. It is true IT personnel can “open” a site deemed harmful by the filtering company, but doing so will involve discussion with the appropriate administrator or committee.
3. The big filtering companies don’t block sites out of spite. They have automated spiders scouring the net, and looking at sites visited by subscribers. When a site fits the criteria for blocking, its URL is added to a list that is updated daily. There is (usually) no Grinch-like administrator hunting for good sites to block. The process is typically automatic. This leads to one of the primary criticisms against filters, that they are reactionary. It usually takes a real live person to go back and correct mistakes made by the bots.
4. As long as there are filters in schools, there will be ways around the filters. A Canadian reference book published in PDF by Citizenlab.org went up recently. Kids can set up proxy sites on their home computers and bypass the filters, use web-enabled devices, or use a host of other techniques. Barring access to anything online is akin to shouting at the wind. People will get irritated the sidewalk doesn’t go where they want, and will get their feet muddy anyway.
5. Unfortunately, along with sites advocating sax and violins, gambling and other vices, Web 2.0 sites are lumped in with the R rated stuff. The reason: liability. Schools don’t want students to make unregulated posts in public parts of the Web using school equipment.
6. Also unfortunately, “gaming” is lumped in with filtering companies’ “bad” categories, because gaming is seen as a waste of time on computers. This includes serious gaming, academic and educational gaming, and often even Google searches for gaming sites. And that’s too bad. The bots can no more distinguish an academically valuable game useful for the classroom from a flash arcade game that is pure drivel.

So there it is. Stay on the sidewalks. But, if you see a quicker, more efficient route to your destination … just follow the path.

Slay a Dragon, Learn a Language

I’ve long felt MMORPGs can provide the sort of immersive environment that is so conducive to learning a foreign language. The military apparently feels the same way, and the DARPA-funded Rapid Tactical Language Training System, developed by USC’s Viterbi School of Engineering’s Center for Research in Technology for Education (CARTE) paved the way for advanced MMORPG use in language and cultural acquisition starting in 2004.

Now, other universities have professors conducting research on the benefits of using MMORPGs for second language acquisition. Since some of the biggest MMORPGs, like World of Warcraft (WoW), already have English as their default language, some of the most intriguing research derives from efforts to help Asians learn to speak English while playing in these MMORPGs.

John K. Waters, a freelance writer in Palo Alto covering high tech developments and Silicon Valley, wrote the cover story for the most recent issue of THE Journal. Waters discusses various efforts to offer ESL and language learning within modern MMORPGs. He begins by discussing the work of Dr. Edd Schneider over at the Dept. of Information and Communications Technology at SUNY Potsdam, and grad student Kai Zheng, who has designed games and written for videogame magazines in China.

Dr. Schneider notes, as I have previously, that Asian parents in general and Chinese parents in particular strongly dislike videogames. They are seen as a waste of time, and generally disruptive to the well-being of children. On the other hand, acquisition of English speaking skills is seen as desirable. Consequently, combining MMORPGs and their “forbidden” (and therefore appealing) aspects with language acquisition may well make for a winning pedagogical formula in Asian countries. Dr. Schneider’s key quote: “I really believe that if Blizzard [WoW’s parent company] started an ESL server of English in China, they would make a fortune.”

Additional academic research covered by Waters in the article includes work by Dr. Bruce Gooch while at Northwestern (he is now at U. Victoria over in B.C.), with grad students Yolanda Rankin and Rachel Gold, using MMORPGs for ESL. The team used EverQuest II, which offers more text labeling and more scripted audio feedback from NPCs than WoW, in a pilot study exploring potential benefits. The key quote from Dr. Gooch: “We know that learning is accelerated if we have an emotional response to the learning. We believe that’s what might be going on in the game. I want to defeat an opponent. I’m worried, I’m scared, I’m excited—I’m interested. You tend to remember things that strike you this way.” How true; this emotional aspect to learning in MMORPGs may well provide a rich field of research in the future.

Dr. Gooch plans to continue work at U. Victoria; Yolanda Rankin plans to continue work at Ole Miss. One key benefit uncovered in their preliminary efforts was the fact that mistakes were perceived as being made by the students’ avatars, not the students themselves. This allowed a measure of face-saving that evidently is deemed important by Asian students.

In a sidebar, Waters also notes efforts at language studies in Second Life. He brings up a research project at non-profit SRI International’s Center for Technology in Learning called Lakamaka Island in SL. Efforts are spearheaded by PIs Valerie Crawford and Phil Vahey from the Institute. “Learning Technology Engineer” John Brecht has a key quote: “Rather than running students through exercises in the abstract, practicing words and phrases from a textbook, the virtual world allows you to engage students in a virtual role-playing exercise.”

Finally, John Nordlinger from the Microsoft Research Group is given wrap up comments. One potential argument, that language learners might pick up various sword and sorcery terms in these medieval fantasy worlds that are not commonly used in everyday English, is countered by Nordlinger. He notes that such uncommon terms in everyday usage are also rampant in popular English literature such as the Harry Potter novels.

Nordlinger surmises that MMORPGs will not completely supplant foreign language teachers, but may well offer powerful supplemental vehicles for language acquisition. This is an assessment with which I heartily concur.

References:
Waters, J. K. (2007, October). On a quest for English. THE Journal, 34(10). 27-32.

Playing with Frogs and Virtual Dissections

In the latest edition of US News & World Report, Lucia Graves has an article dealing with virtual frog dissections. I’m familiar with froguts.com, and their CD offering. Graves pointed out several other products such as digitalfrog.com, tactustech.com, biolabsoftware.com, and animalearn.org.

Using software to virtually dissect frogs carries several advantages over cutting up a real one. For one thing, there is less mess, and less of an “Eww!” factor. Even better, Graves notes that repetition of certain tasks, such as where exactly one should slice in order to uncover certain organs, can be very nicely accommodated in virtual dissection programs. Also, virtual innards don’t decay like real innards do, allowing easier observation of the way things are supposed to appear under optimal circumstances.

Alas, some from the old school eschew virtual dissections in favor of the real thing. Jessica Mason, a “volunteer science teacher” is quoted as saying nothing beats the mess (and smell) of the real thing to really teach kids and show them how wonderful biology can be.

Meanwhile, Graves notes that a grad student over at Simon Fraser U., in Vancouver, has created the first haptic dissection program, with force feedback to simulate the feel of the blade cutting into frog flesh.

References
Graves, L. (2007, October 29). For frogs, a digital detour. US News & World Report, p.59.