3D Game Lab

Thanks to reviewing classmates’ comments on their own GameLab progress, I began wondering whether this might be helpful in an FYC classroom. I’m hesitant because I’m not a “native gamer” so I would have to be VERY conservative. I know very little about Game Theory in the Classroom too, so I could see how it could all go very wrong, very fast.

That said, I began wondering if GameLab would be useful to guide students through self-paced learning units for materials that typically slow down the in-class experience: like grammar or citation. I’ve used interactive, hands-on activities for both of these topics in the past, using everything from crayons and highlighters to cutting / pasting / building activities. I am always, however, looking for something new, something more effective that will get students to think about the WHY of their choices, the MOVES they make in building citations, using them, and looking at them through a rhetorical lens (i.e., why they make the choices they do in light of expected conventions like MLA).

So I went to the 3D GameLab blog for educators, and read this statement: “Each different platform has its pros and cons, and few teachers are actually in control of the purchasing decisions.” Having just read the Miller-Cochran / Rodrigo article on DL Usability, this quote stood out to me. The article (as well as the earlier reading by Haas, Selfex2, and especially DeVoos et al. on Infrastructure) points out the impact of infrastructure on our available tools and pathways in the digital / multimodal classroom (as well as research and assessment). So to see the GameLab authors point out their program as a “solution” to this constraint was an interesting connection.

Since I’m currently piloting iPads in a classroom (and running into all sorts of constraints), their observation about platform versatility also interested me: “Tablets work great for lots of different reasons. Whether it’s an iPad or an Android, tablets offer a touchscreen interface and are still mostly used for entertainment, which makes them a good choice for gaming, but not necessarily for word processing.”

I know inserting large chunks of quoted material is inefficient in notes like these, but this next passage seems to capture what WE are doing this term: “After choosing a game, you have to play it. Really play it. Play it all the way through and make sure you know it intimately. Games are not the same as textbooks or handouts. You don’t prepare in the same way. This is not about just making sure you’re familiar enough with the material that you can facilitate a discussion. Nor is it about just understanding the mechanics well enough that you can provide technical support, helping your students understand how to operate the game. Instead, preparing to assign a game is about play. Play is exploration. It involves imagination. It means investigating the world of the game and feeling the frustration, flow, and fiero that goes along with playing it. When you engage with the game, you not only try to see the game from the perspective of your students, you also understand how the game presents the material. Before students play, teachers can introduce concepts in ways that resonate with the game. After students play, teachers can refer back to the game’s particular way of conceptualizing an idea.”

Interestingly, this all seems geared to the k-12 population (like this link to a YouTube series): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA3C69D48D4FFE87E

So, back to the quest: I skipped ahead to Planning to Use OERs, given our 800-level readings recently and our current work on creating an assignment. Loved the questions at the start: start first by addressing the questions of what are the learning objectives, what are the needs for the open resources. After that’s managed (like we’re doing with our assignments, holding off on fleshing out the scaffolding), THEN look to the “small stuff” of activities and such. The quest linked me to a reading on “Modular e-Learning”, as well as reusable objects, highlighting the value of using “reusable learning objects” thanks to their multi-platform capabilities and “chunk-ability” or modular, building-block methodology (Vygotsky, scaffolding, comes to mind). One of the things that occurred to me while reading, however, was how teachers often take f2f learning modules / practices and simply transplant them whole into an OWI environment. That rarely works without significant tweaking. We’ve also seen this happen when incorporating digital technology (like the iPad or laptops or LMSs) into a writing classroom. We try to make these things serve an existing alphabetic-text based lesson plan as just a plug-in – or worse, a one-to-many pedagogical practice.  I do like the way the rhetoric of this description reframes this: seeing a lesson plan in terms of a “learning object.” Perhaps this is just a vocabulary shift, somewhat reminiscent of manufacturing lines (again, I thought of that when reading Miller-Cochran & Rodrigo this week). The claim that “Reusable learning objects offer the potential for learners to individualize learning” struck me as a parallel to that article’s concerns with adapting the OWI space to accommodate multiple learning styles and practices (MC & R spoke of the various ways students accessed the materials in WebCT). Interestingly, the advice to avoid applying Instructional Design Theory to working with learning objects may be a fit to this other reading as well (not really a surprise, given the author R): that the “content itself” and “the interface” – not the instructor’s dominant delivery mode – should be what dictates “the style” of instruction. But wouldn’t the two intersect – even clash – anyway?

A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for Online Writing Instruction (OWI). CCCC, March 2013.

The statement begins with an overview of its origins and its purpose, revealing “a blueprint for further investigation into OWI.” Two main features ground the major principles: “inclusivity and accessibility” (Principle 1 pg. 7). The length of the statement itself prohibits creating a point by point set of notes for this entry, so I thought I’d hit a few of the principles that really stood out to me in relation to my own institution.

I appreciate the positioning of Principle 2: “an OWC should focus on writing and not on technology orientation or teaching students how to use learning and other technologies” (11). All too often, when our program has encouraged us to consider the 21st century digital literacies outcomes, finding a happy balance between this and student writing felt burdensome at times.  Fact is, tech orientation is needed, especially in an OWC. But who should provide it? That’s a question we’ve asked at our own school, arguing that if students plan to take an online course, they must first satisfactorily complete some type of orientation module that acquaints them with the types of tech they may face in the classroom. If those requirements are not met, they cannot be admitted to the course. This is the crux of Effective Practice 2.1 on page 11.

Further, the argument here that “onsite” pedagogies for writing must be at the core of online practices may be something we as writing teachers assume, but I think online – more than in f2f situations at times – demand even more attention to the rhetoric of space. We’ve been exploring this in terms of SoTL (didactic teaching, etc.), but I suspect f2f teaching often inhabits space uncritically. Throw technology into the mix, and we have “The Politics of the Interface.” To be honest, I think it would be wise for all teachers of writing who use LMSs or technology of any kind to mediate student learning – and not just OWC instructors – to familiarize themselves with these principles. In far too many cases, I found these principles to seem relevant to the “onsite” classroom too.

The principles go beyond just the classroom and teaching to include teacher training, institutional compensation and responsibility, success communities, tech support access, professional development / research … clearly establishing this need as more than simply a (warranted) concern for technology-based learning. It seems this is a system – a network of learning – that must be considered as more than just a “ramped-up” variation of f2f classrooms. The Miller-Cochran / Rodrigo article is an illustration of just why these principles have very real applications.

Miller-Cochran, Susan K. and Rochelle L. Rodrigo. “Determining Effective Distance Learning Designs Through Usability Testing.” Computers and Composition 23 (2006): 91-107.

A usability study done borrowing methods from the engineering world to “diagnose potential design problems” in an online course (91). The authors address the impact and/or complications of applying an industry-based test to an academic online course, leading me to note in my marginalia that this was somewhat ironic given our earlier readings and those of the NL book that disparage industrial paradigms (94). The study echoes calls by Selfe/Selfe and others to carefully consider how we integrate technology into the classroom – even an online classroom. Interestingly to me was the point that such testing commonly relies on surveying students who were successful in the course, not always hearing from those who did not complete the course and why (92). The goal of this study was to examine the design of the course and its impact on these students. The article outlines the methodology and the research questions guiding them,  many of which focused on navigation-related issues. The authors plan a multi-pronged approach to the testing design, incorporating qualitative and quantitative data (reminding me of the article from last week on this type of multimodal approach). Specifically, they used a heuristic evaluation method that used a “think-aloud protocol…to collect additional data on how the participants were completing the task in the course,” a reflective element (95). In the end, the goal of such testing is to facilitate course redesign to enhance student learning (96).

The essay outlines many of the guidelines we’ve explored in the SoTL text (like avoiding conducting such studies with one’s own students, instead asking a colleague to run the testing to minimize student angst). Further, I found several of the findings of interest to even a non online class like those I’m currently teaching, like reviewing the navigability of the tasks and language associated to minimize or eliminate unnecessary repetition (98) – in the study, this occurred in the LMS platform design – and highlighting instructor assumptions about student encounters with the media and the course interface (100). Of particular note to me is their observation that “[d]esigning a course for an ‘average user’ becomes difficult when the students’ experiences differ greatly” (101). I think this must be true of even non-OWI courses because many of us incorporate an LMS into our f2f courses as well.

The essay points to suggestions for those who would repeat this usability test in their own institutions, including a list of 8 on page 102. Finally, the essay offers “guidelines for designing online courses” as a result of the patterns that emerge from such testing. They point to “three major premises” at the heart of their recommendations: “simplifying design, directing learning” (like creating pathways) “and facilitating multiple access to the course” (103).