Play with Learning

Digital Nativity

Many of you might have seen this but thought it would a suitably seasonal note to wish you a Merry Christmas!

Digital Nativity by ExcentricPT

Facebook – Jack of all trades

flickr details

I have the privilege and pleasure of helping out at the local youth group. On Monday we had our Christmas party.  I took some photos.  And put them onto Facebook – inevitably the online social hub of the group.  I also posted them on Flickr.  I received a note asking why I’d duplicated the effort.  Surely Facebook is enough?

It seems a fair point.  What can’t you do on Facebook now? Photos, videos, email, games, chat…?  Isn’t the technological singularity of the platform all persuasive?  David Kirkpatrick believes that Facebook will become ubiquitous: “In five years there won’t be a distinction between being on and off Facebook” he says in his book, The Facebook Effect.  But the question is, can it be as good as a dedicated resource?

We’re witnessing an interesting technological phenomena.  Actually for the second time.  Initially, ease of use actually degrades the quality.  Look at the the MP3/ ipod revolution – the technical quality of music recording dropped significantly.  We sacrificed fidelity for convenience.  And now, we’ve reached the point where Generation Y apparently prefer the tinny low resolution sound of highly compressed audio.  The advances offered by CDs have gone (ignoring for a moment, the purists’ argument about the warmth of vinyl).

So it is with Facebook.  Yes, it offers mail but it’s not as good or as flexible as Outlook; chat isn’t as good as IM; viewing photos isn’t as good as Flickr.  Of course it might just be a question of time – Facebook may buy or develop software that is comparable to specialised applications, or as we’ve seen with MP3s, we may simply accept the restrictions as a reasonable price for convergence.

However, there is a new technical ‘kid on the block’ that might spoil Facebook’s party – apps.  The transformation that Apple’s App Store and its mimics has offered to software development is astonishing.  It is a twenty-first century cottage industry with global distribution.  And it is an industry dedicated to highly tailored, specialised tasks – finding local restaurants, free car parking spaces, to do lists.  It offers software produced elegantly to address a single challenge.  And it is fantastically successful both for producers and consumers.  The appeal of bespoke apps is their fitness for purpose: they are not bloated with unnecessary functionality – they focus on doing one thing well.  If I want to upload a photo, I don’t want to start up a whole image processing package.  It’s partly the immediacy of need associated with mobile computing – “I need something specific. Now.”

In January, Apple opens its App Store for computer software.  I wonder if it will prove as successful as it’s iPhone/iPod/iPad brethren?  Or whether the specialists be swallowed by the all-consuming Jack of All Trades?

TV – the social media

broken television

In the last few years, some commentators have predicted the death of television, some even championed it, declaring that it was obsolete – superseded by interactive media that offer true user participation. They cite massive user figures for the likes of Facebook, World of Warcraft as evidence that traditional media is on it’s way out. Linked with data that charts a declining number of viewer hours, it is a compelling case. But assertions of the imminent demise of broadcast media may be premature.

Last weekend, 20 million people in the UK watched the final of X-factor. It followed a week of Coronation Street where more than 10 million viewers tuned in for every episode. Tonight millions are watching the finale of The Apprentice.  By anyone’s measure they are impressive numbers.

However, it isn’t the figures that make broadcast remarkable – it is the event it becomes.  All the criticisms of linear media – the lack of viewing control, the fixed presentation, the dictated sequencing – are precisely the aspects that continue to endear the format to the masses.  Sometimes, and particularly after a day at work/ school/ activity of any kind, we don’t want to ‘sing for our supper’, we just want to sit back and be entertained.  In these circumstances, we want to be spoon-fed high quality, low effort content.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean mindless, senseless, emotionless programming (although arguably even that has its place) rather we want to envelop ourselves in the creativity of media producers that are better than us.  It’s not just the luxury of revelling in expert craft that makes it valuable to us – it’s the knowledge that others are having the same experience (if not in the same place, at least at the same time).

Newer media lacks a defining moment. Although benefitting from the long tail which accumulates many users over time, each instance sits is a separate fragment of time.  It means that everyone has a uniquely individual experience.

Where television continues to dominate is as the basis for next-day conversation. It is the preeminent catalyst for workplace/ classroom discussion because it provides a shared reference.

There are tremendous opportunities for simultaneous narrative and two-screen experiences but for the time being, television remains the social media.

A degree of value?

student demo

Today the UK parliament votes to triple fees to study for a higher education degree. Given the composition of the House of Commons, the outcome of the vote is largely predictable. The effect on future generations is less clear.

When student tuition fees were introduced in 2006, Universities UK (UUK), the representative organisation for the UK’s universities, commissioned PwC to assess the economic value of higher education. They calculated that over a lifetime graduates would earn £160,000 more than holders of A-levels without degrees. This extra income was assumed by many to mitigate the £9000 debt (not including living expenses) that young adults have when they leave university.

Of course, that’s not the whole picture. If we assume students can live off £80-100/week during term time (to pay rent, bills, food, clothes, etc) and enjoy the cost-free luxury of parents at other times, it adds another £9000 over the course of a typical three year degree. Even before this proposed increase in fees, that would leave the average 21 year old graduate with an £18,000 millstone of debt around their neck. {i’, being wildly optimistic with these figures, too. In 2004, before fees were introduced at all, the NatWest bank estimated the average cost of a degree was £26,000]

Graduates will pay that off over time. There’s no question of it but it means years of payments and the virtual impossibility of saving for any other cause, the deposit for a house, for example.

Before the government of the 80s taught us that living beyond our means was a good thing, ordinary folk avoided debt like the plague. Many working class families simply could conceive of borrowing that amount of money for something apparently intangible. It’s an entirely different proposition if one has the Bank of Mum and Dad to pay off any outstanding loans.

Now the coalition government wants to triple those fees. £9000/ year for the best universities. £27,000 for the typical degree, not including living expenses. Put another way, that’s £100/ month for 22.5 years with the students living on free air. If you’re a parent and don’t want your child saddled with crippling debt, you’ll need to start saving before your child is born. If you want a degree yourself, you’ll be university-debt free by the time you are 44. 44.

How many poor kids or parents do you know able to make that sacrifice? Would you in these economically uncertain times?

There’s a misconception that only the student benefits from a degree, it’s the reason many resent paying their taxes to support the university system. But, it is a flawed argument. We all benefit from having the most educated society possible. Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that everyone should have or needs a degree (although I passionately believe everyone should have the right to the best possible education to whatever level they choose). Every single one of our lives is improved by talented, educated people in all walks of life whether they are doctors, engineers, teachers, dare I say, even artists and musicians.

I oppose the rise in tuition fees because I believe they will stop poor but gifted young people from being stretched at university, exacerbating the already shameful inequalities on our education system. And I oppose the rise in fees because I believe our society will be impoverished economically, culturally and intellectually by fewer graduates.

The cost of education is high but the cost of ignorance is much much higher.

Where play meets learning

Play’ and ‘games’ are dirty words to many traditional educationalists because of their connotations of trivial, wasteful and indulgent activity.  It might hark back to our WASP-ish philosophy that only hardship and suffering are good for the soul.   Even the seminal play theorist, Johan Huizinga, argued that play is “an activity connected with no material interest.” (1)  Huizinga defined play as:

• free
• meaningful
• carried out for its own sake
• spatially and temporally segregated from the requirements of practical life
• bound by a self-contained system of rules that holds absolutely

However, play is a valuable means of facilitating learning because the act of playing encourages imagination, creativity and spontaneity.  These are are key elements of cognitive plasticity – the ability of our brains to flex and adapt.  Many evolutionary biologists and psychologists suggest that play is  a unconscious, instinctive and practical pursuit that is purely a training ground for adulthood but Brian Sutton-Smith (2) believes that the dynamics of play mirror the biological processes that lead to adaptive variability, that is, play is characterised by quirkiness, unpredictability and redundancy.

play & learning

Play is an intrinsic part of learning where learning is the development of thinking (cognitive), emotional  (affective) or physical (psychomotor) skills.  Indeed, Piaget (3) and Vygotsky (4) both contend that play, in its various forms, is central to development from birth to adulthood.  The instinctive play of children is good at developing the range of psychomotor and affective skills but not so effective at cognitive ones.  For example, simple games of ‘shops’ help children understand the social interactions involved in basic shopping and even the physical movements required to use a cash register but fail to instil any sense of value for money.  Piaget defined play as a process of assimilation of experiences through which a child reaches higher levels of cognitive development.

However, for play-developed learning to be meaningful outside its own context, it must breach the magic circle (what Huizinga means by play being “spatially and temporally segregated from the requirements of practical life”).  In other words, the learner must be able to transfer the skills developed within the game to other, real world contexts if the playing can affect wider experiences.  This transfer is what makes play-based learning extrinsically valuable to the player.

———-

(1) – Huizinga, J., (1950), Homo Ludens, Roy Publishers, New York (n.b Hector Rodriguez has an excellent summary of Huizinga’s work)

(2) – Sutton-Smith, B., (1997), The Ambiguity of Play, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

(3) – Piaget, J., (1962), Play, dreams and imitation in childhood, W. W. Norton & Company, New York

(4) – Vygotsky, L. S., (1962), Thought and Language, Wiley, New York

Facebook cartoon meme

dangermouse

You may well have seen the campaign on Facebook to change your profile picture to a childhood cartoon character.

The changes were accompanied by a status update like this:

Change your facebook profile picture to a cartoon character from your childhood and invite your friends to do the same. Until Monday, December 6, there should be no human faces on facebook, but an invasion of memories! This is for a campaign against violence on children.

I changed mine (and received all sorts of friendly abuse questioning whether I was young enough to choose this particular character from my childhood!).  About 30% of my Facebook friends changed their profile pictures too.

But lots of people have been sceptical as Mashable reported last week.  And of course, this wasn’t official charity-supported campaign.  Although some people inserted NSPCC into their updates, it was not an NSPCC initiative (although I suspect the charity wishes it had have been given the social infectiousness).

Many people got quite cross about it, some even Daily Mail* hysterical: “Apparently that picture change was a scam from those dirty bastards that would harm our children” but most were irritated by the claim that this would make any difference:”Can anyone explain how changing my profile pic to a cartoon character is going to stop child abuse?” posted one of my good friends.

Can anyone explain how changing my profile pic to a cartoon character is going to stop child abuse?

But that’s the theory of social advertising isn’t it? A small statement made by masses to promote a commonly-held view.  I agree with Malcolm Gladwell’s assertion that the “weak ties [of social media] seldom lead to high-risk activism” but I don’t discount them entirely as a vehicle for change.  However small a token, millions of people changed their pictures to make a personal statement.  It was a relatively effortless act but that doesn’t denude its value.  Granted it might have been better if everyone of us who changed our picture had made a donation to a relevant charity (and I’d still encourage you to do that) but more powerful is the badge that says “This is unacceptable to me.” This withdrawal of social acceptance is the basis for changed behaviour.

The vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by the family of the victim or by a family friend.  This cartoon campaign is likely to have reacheed deeper into those dark recesses of society than any mainstream, institutional, advertising campaign because it’s been personal and social.  Maybe some of those who changed their picture might go on to support a child advocacy charity, maybe it simply prompted a bit of discussion but maybe, just maybe, it was the kernel of a shared belief that changing bahaviour starts in a small personal way. I hope so.

——————–

Update – NSPCC put this note on their official Facebook page:

“Thank you to everyone who has been supporting the NSPCC! As a result of the Facebook cartoon campaign, we have experienced a massive jump in traffic to our website and an unprecedented surge in donations. How did the campaign impact you? We would love to hear your story.”

——————–

*Please remember this is the UK’s Daily Mail with no greater evidence than “one Facebooker.” It’s just wild unsubstantiated rabble-rousing nonsense. I’m almost embarrassed about including it but it is precisely this kind of irresponsible reporting that prevents us from tackling these issues constructively.

Games teach us lots

In my earlier post, I highlighted how little actual evidence there was that games can deliver transferable learning on the own.  This post presents some of the recent work that suggest playing computer games can teach us lots, albeit as a complement to other interventions.

There are two kinds of learning one can associate with game play:

• learning about the game
• learning from the game

Good games are excellent examples of how activities can be structured to make us better players, that is, they balance challenge and reward to keep us motivated while we improve our skill.  Successful games are structured to improve our in-game performance with harder adversaries, fewer resources, less time and so on.  By the time we complete the game, we are experts in its rules and behaviours.  More about this another time.

The challenge for learning providers is how we learn from games.  That is, how can playing games help us learn more about subjects that we use in our day-to-day life like history, language, maths, citizenship, workplace skills, etc.

myst

Of course quizzes, that most simple form of game, have long been used for assessment purposes and provoke a degree of learning by illustrating what we don’t know.  However it generally falls to an ‘instructor’ to use games effectively for the acquisition of knowledge and skills.  The celebrated primary school teacher, Tim Rylands, describes how he has used games very successfully in his classes for literacy.  Tim has used Myst and its sequels as a catalyst for creative writing with young children, inspiring them to create some beautiful work.  Likewise Derek Robertson and the team at the Learning and Teaching Scotland Consolarium have used the Nintendo DS as part of their lessons with impressive results.

However the wider adoption of gaming within the classroom (for general engagement as well as education) faces a number of barriers including curriculum flexibility, teacher confidence and access to technology.  The recently published conclusions from the European IMAGINE project, Digital Games for Learning (pdf), makes 15 recommendations for mainstreaming games-based learning.

Outside of the classroom, many organisations, notably the military, use simulation games to practise and improve skills.  It is arguable whether full industrial simulators are actually games at all but simplified games are common in many fields from teacher training to medical triage.  Traci Stizman and Katherine Ely in their meta-analysis of the effectiveness of simulation games (pdf) identify benefits including higher levels of declarative (+11%) and procedural knowledge (+14%) and greater retention of material (+9%) than those using traditional learning methods.  However, in a less well cited observation, they also say “trainees learned less from simulation games than comparison instructional methods when the instruction the comparison group received as a substitute for the simulation game actively engaged them in the learning experience.” In other words, there are more effective ways of learning than games.

In their recent report for Becta, Karl Royle and Scott Colfer reiterate the potential for educational games but suggest that the real benefits are yet to fully realised and are perhaps associated with information economy skills.  Henry Jenkins and his collaborators identified a set of new media literacies (pdf) in 2006.  It is not entirely surprising that game play encompasses many of these twenty-first century skills but at the moment we haven’t managed to pin down a robust way of checking these higher level abilities.

Although it remains to difficult to establish the unique and unadulterated contribution games make to ‘formal’ learning, it is obvious to anyone that has ever played, there is all sorts of skills development going on.  The greatest challenge seems to be unlocking those lessons without the scaffolding of an enthusiastic teacher.