America's Army: Learning to crawl...

America's Army Game Play Reflection #4

Today I would continue training. First stop, Advanced Marksmanship. Oops. Not available. Apparently when I did basic marksmanship in BCT, I only qualified as Sharpshooter. I need to qualify as Expert to be eligible for Advanced Marksmanship. This requires I go back to BCT and requalify. I need to get 36 hits out of 40 shots. It was pretty easy once I realized I was supposed to press the right mouse button to get to use the iron sites rather than the "green dot". So then it was on to Advanced Marksmanship. This is long range guns. You have to use the scope (which fortunately I now know requires the right mouse button.) I hate to say it, but this part was kinda fun. I was most impressed with the programming that went into using these long range guns with scopes. You could hear "Bill Qualls as Soldier" simultaneously trying to breath and hold his breath as he attempts to steady the gun. The scope is almost on target, and then "floats" away as you expend your breath. I caught myself actually holding my breath! And I'm only using a mouse! I had to laugh at myself. How's that for an "embodied" experience? But I did qualify!


So then it was off to Special Forces training. The "Introduction" course was really bogus. You walk around to eight different people and listen to them tell about their job. When you listen to all eight, that's it, you're done.


So having passed the SF introduction, it's off to Escape and Evasion training. You fly in by helicopter and get dropped off in the woods and you have to make your way to three different objectives without being seen. Note that there is no instruction given.


"Slow and low", they tell you. "Stay off of ridges or places where you will be silhouetted." Does this constitute learning? For that matter, does the target audience know what "silhouetted" means? Anyway, I can mock as much as I like, but I didn't make it. Not even to the first checkpoint. I was spotted everytime. I find the simulated darkness very difficult: I don't think that's what Gee meant when he referred to am embodied experience. This is slow and b-o-r-i-n-g. I can hardly wait for next week to try it again....


Jason - I appreciate your suggestion that I change games. My son is wishing I would, in hopes that I will understand his obsession with video games. But I don't think it matters: as I've said before, it's not video games in particular, it's games in general. I just see it all as wasted time. Maybe the game will improve when I finish all the training modules. Note this is not to say I haven't gotten something out of this course. I absolutely have. For me, the most significant part of this course so far -- the big "ah ha" moment -- came with Gee pages 84-87. I would be happy to discuss with you if you'd like.

Student Selection #2 - Using riddles and interactive computer games to teach problem-solving skills

Source

Doolittle, John H. (1995). Using Riddles and Interactive Computer Games to Teach Problem-Solving Skills. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 33-36. Retrieved Friday, February 20, 2009 from the EBSCO Host database.

Abstract

"Cognitive flexibility, which is defined as the ability to generate several categories of possible solutions, is identified as the most critical aspect of creativity training. Word tables, interactive computer games, and riddles are used to develop cognitive flexibility. Preliminary results from analyses with quasi-experimental designs provide promising evidence that these methods are effective in enhancing creative and other forms of critical thought in college students."

Comments

I found a couple of comments which are relevant not only to computer games but also to e-Learning: "Students solving interactive-fiction problems on a computer generate a variety of solutions, but they may become frustrated on finding that not one of their solutions leads to progress toward the goal. (Comment: this has absolutely been my experience with America's Army! Also consistent with "anxiety" as mentioned in Carl's "Flow" paper.) This frustration can quickly build into discouragement and a sense of failure and must be countered by either the sequencing of task difficulty or the judicious application of hints." And, "To determine when and where hints are necessary, the software can record which obstacles are the hardest to overcome and where students seem to get stuck. The student can retrieve this information and improve the flow of the program." Wouldn't it be nice if, as teachers, we could track how long it takes each student to "get it", or if they even do? Well, with logging of computer responses we can do just that!

The author also presented empirical evidence for the effectiveness of using riddles and computer games for training students to be problem solvers. Several instruments were used to measure problem solving abilities. Students in the comparison groups did not show gains in the measures beyond chance expectation, but students in the experimental groups (which received practice with the riddles and computer games) showed statistically significant gains on all of the measures. "Independent analyses conducted by the Dean's Office at the University of California Medical School, Davis, have indicated an improvement for (the experimental group) students in grade point average, undergraduate dropout rates, and medical school admission and retention rates."

Reflection on "Flow" paper

Reading Reflection
Flow - A Theory of Optimal Experience: History and Critical Evaluation, by Walter John Carl III

Give your thoughts.

The article begins by posing the question, "Have you even been involved in an activity where you felt alert, in effortless control, unselfconscious, performing at your best? A sense of time and emotional problems seem to disappear, and maybe there is a feeling of transcendence, or oneness with the activity?" Several examples immediately came to mind. First, when I knew I was great job teaching. Second, when I knew I was doing great programming. And third, when I was doing great hiking. What a strange mix, huh? Teaching, programming, and hiking?

The interest in flow is intrinsic motivation. Why do different individuals perceive different activities to be so deeply satisfying? As with my "strange mix" mentioned above, research shows that "intrinsic rewards could be built into any activity, including work".

"The result of this (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson 1987) study showed that almost any activity in daily life can produce a flow like experience. Also, it showed that activities like studying and schoolwork were conducive to flow the same as typical leisure activities were. It was also shown that television viewing was the activity that produced the greatest amount of apathy in an individual." I enjoy going to school (though I don't particularly enjoy schoolwork) but I get very little enjoyment from television. In fact, we haven't had a television in our home for three years.

So why do so many people (seem to) enjoy TV? The article doesn't really address why some things create a flow experience for some people but not for others. (Beyond being too challenging or too boring.)

The author said "To remain in flow, one must increase the complexity of the activity by developing new skills to meet new challenges." I am not convinced this is the case. Likewise, "(Edward Deci) noticed that when people were given money for activities they enjoyed, they lost interest in those things faster than if they were not rewarded." Oh really? Let's test that theory. Pay me to hike. Please.

What are the features of some games that lend them to inducing flow?

I am not really qualified to answer this question since, as I have stated before, I am not really a game player. But I'll take a stab at it. Consider the model shown on page 11, with Skills on the x-axis, Challenges on the y-axis, and Flow along the diagonal.

I like the model: it is simple, "parsimonious". But if I were to attempt to apply the model, I would say that people tend to gravitate towards those games which, for them, fall along the diagonal.

Still, there are flaws in the model (as with most models) when applied to games. For example, I'm sure there are games which are not very challenging, and for which I have no skills, but I would doubtless find boring. Likewise, I'm sure there are games which are quite challenging, and for which I might have the requisite skills, but I would also find boring. Example: I am a pretty good chess player, but I find chess boring.

So I guess what I am saying is that I don't think some games are "better" than others at "inducing flow". I think people are just drawn to the games which "flow" for them.

Can you recall a situation in which you experienced flow? Now try to think of another in an educational setting.

As I mentioned in the first paragraph of this reflection, I have had flow experiences when I have been teaching, programming, and hiking. As for flow experiences in an educational setting, I have them when I leave a classroom feeling as though I have learned something, especially something that is relevent to me.

Do you think flow is antithetical to traditional learning?

Not if we follow the model presented by the author. The challenge to educators is to move learners towards the middle -- towards the flow diagonal -- to add challenges when they are bored, and to remove challenges (or provide hints, thereby lessening the challenge or guiding them to the solution) when they are anxious.

America's Army: I can now jump AND treat my own broken bones!

America's Army - Game Play Reflection #3

Describe your gamplay this week. What happened, what did you do, what did you find satisfying, frustrating, etc.

When we last left Bill, he was failing jump school...so I thought I would give it an hour before giving up on being Airborne. But it wasn't necessary. A mere 53 minutes of play and I was finally made a satisfactory jump, landing in the circle. What is frustrating is (1) I was never told what I was doing wrong, and (2) I still don't know what I did right. I think it is because I steered left ("A") before steering forward ("W"). Also, don't "flare" the chute ("F") until about 2 seconds off the ground. (I learned that part from Googling this, but I'm not sure it was significant and I'm not about to try it again!) What was most annoying about the jump was that everytime you tried (and failed) the game had to be reloaded and you had to stand in the plane for 30 seconds while you waited for it to fly over the jump zone. Grrr....

So on to Field Medic training. This was interesting -- basically it's three modules of first aid training, each of which is presented in a lecture / powerpoint format...



...followed by a multiple choice quiz.



I think you need 70% to pass. I was embarrassed when I (an Eagle scout and CPR trained) got 72% on the first section (Airway Management) but I was interrupted by a phone call and I couldn't figure out how to pause the presentation. So I paid closer attention on the bleeding and shock presentations and got 100% on those...



You cannot go back to a quiz and see what you answered wrong. I think that is a learning opportunity that was missed by the game designers.

I am now Airborne and Field Medic certified.



Identify a connection to Gee's identity concepts described in Chapter 3.

Honestly...

• Bill Qualls as Soldier was frustrated.
• Bill Qualls as Soldier was frustrated.
• Bill Qualls as Soldier was frustrated.

I did not at any point feel an identity as Soldier.

Describe how your game provides the elements Malone & Lepper detail and how they are important to your game.

Challenge - The jump was not particularly motivating. I thought I might get it eventually, and I did, but the motivation came from my own stubborness. The medic quizzes were challenging (motivating) in that I wanted to get as high a score as possible. I think it has more to do with self-efficacy.

Curiosity - I am curious about the future modules, which require successful completion of these training modules.

Control - In the jump training I felt I had almost no control. Would "A" really steer me to the left? When should I flare? In the medic training, I felt in complete control: walk to the classroom, listen to the instructors' presentations, take the tests. The medic training was much more motivating that the jump training.

Fantasy - The whole thing is a fantasy, and I personally don't find that motivating at all. Please understand -- I'm not complaining. I have gained a lot from the Gee book so far, and from the ToonTalk game I wrote about earlier. I don't care for fantasy literature or fantasy movies, so it is no surprise (to me) that I don't care for this game. And it's not even of the fantasy genre! But I will persevere...until I am honorably discharged in May.

Gee Chapter 3

Give your thoughts.

I enjoyed this chapter (more than chapter 2, but less than chapter 4), and its tripartite identity model.

Can you recall or imagine an experience you have had that fits this tripartite identity model?

An example would be my experience in Boy Scouts. There is the virtual identity (Bill Qualls as boy scout), the real world identity (Bill Qualls as boy scout), and the projective identity (Bill Qualls as boy scout). The projective identity is one which educators should be most concerned with: it is what leads to the semiotic domain discussed in chapter 2 and the embodied meanings discussed in chapter 4.

Choose two principles summarized on page 67 and describe briefly how you might or have used them in your educational setting.

11. Achievement Principle. For learners of all levels of skill there are intrinsic rewards from the beginning, customized to each learner's level, effort, and growing mastery and signalling the learner's ongoing achievements. (This reminds me of ranks in scouting, and belts in tae kwon do.)

14. "Regime of Competence" Principle. The learner gets ample opportunity to operate within, but at the outer edge of, his or her resources, so that at those points things are felt as challenging but not "undoable". (Example from scouting: you learn knots before learning lashings, and swimming before life saving. Example from tae kwon do: you learn a round house kick before an autobahn kick, and single kicks before kick sequences.)

Malone and Lepper "c" the light, (boo)

Describe Malone and Lepper's point in three sentences or less.

Malone and Lepper are concerned with "the design of instructional environments that are intrinsically motivating; that is, environments in which people are motivated to learn in the absence of obvious external rewards or punishments (page 223)."

Identify a game (digital or not) that you have played that exhibits the four individual intrinsic motivational elements (challenge, curiosity, fantasy, control).

You should know by now that I'm not much of a game player - digital or otherwise. About as close as I can come is Freecell.

Challenge.

Relevant quote: "People prefer an optimal level of challenge. Activities that are trivially easy or impossibly difficult will be of little intrinsic interest (page 231)."

It is certainly challenging: each "deal" is different, and though it has never been proven, the thought is that every game is solvable. I think I have solved just about every Freecell game I've attempted. I have certainly had to start over. And there are those which I have quit because of other tasks I needed to tend to.

Curiosity.

Relevant quote: "Curiosity is stimulated by an optimal level of informational complexity or and optimal level of discrepancy or incongruity from present expectations and knowledge."

Given this definition, I cannot see any curiosity in Freecell. (Curiosity can be easily confused with challenge.)

Control.

Relevant quote: "There seems to be considerable agreement that it is the perception of control, rather than the objective level of actual control, that is the important psychological variable of interest (page 238)."

I suppose there is an element of control to Freecell: I get to choose the cards I move. I guess in the gaming sense, the opposite of control is random. I am in control of the outcome of the Freecell game: there is nothing random about it beyond the initial dealing of the cards.

Another relevant quote: "In fact, there is evidence that even an illusion of control may often produce powerful effects (Langer, 1975). Although we would not recommend it as a design strategy, it seems possible that even response-independent programs that appear to have been responsive to user input would produce enhanced levels of intrinsic motivation (page 239)."

This would appear to have significant relevance to the development of e-Learning courseware.

Fantasy.

Relevant quote: "We define a fantasy environment as one that evokes mental images of physical or social situations not actually present (e.g., darts and balloon or being the ruler of a kingdom). We believe such fantasies contribute to intrinsic motivation in several ways (page 240)."

Beyond the abstraction of a deck of cards, there is nothing "fantasy" about Freecell, though it does remind me of the concept of "amplification of input" that was discussed in class. Specifically, I say new game and -- poof -- the cards are all dealt.

Identify a situation you have experienced in a traditional learning experience that provided these elements.

I would have to go back to Boy Scouting:

• Challenge - advancement requirements become more difficult with each rank.
• Curiosity - wondering what the more senior scouts know.
• Control - some merit badges are required, but some are of the scout's choosing.
• Fantasy - the high adventure aspects of camping and hiking; "roughing it".

America's Army: This white man can't jump

America's Army - Game Play Reflection #2

This is my second reflection on my game play time with America's Army. I sat down to play, reluctantly, at 7:53am. I said I would give it two hours. I must complete the shoot house to graduate from BCT (Basic Combat Training). I need 10,000 points to get out. I tried repeatedly.

8,100
6,700
7,600
5,600 (Will I ever get out of here? I can't tell the good guys from the bad guys!)
7,100
8,200
10,500 (Finally!)



So now I can go on to additional training. But wait! The menu says they are all still unavailable to me! Turns out my results from the shoot house were not recorded. Here we go again....

7,900
7,000
4,800 (Oh dear God!)
10,400 (Oh thank you God!)

Somewhere in these latter attempts I realized that I am supposed to press "F" after viewing my results in order to Save the results or to Retry the game. I found this out by mistake -- the "F" is the general purpose "Use" key and is used to skip instructions, pick up your gun, open doors, and apparently, open menus. Knowing this in advance would have saved me a lot of time which was spent reloading the game.

This sucks.

My son tells me it's my own fault for being too cheap to buy a "real" game. I should have sent the kid to military school.

But at least I am out of BCT. On to Airborne training. First stop is the Tower Jump. I completed this on my first try. Not sure how.

Now I need five (oh no!) live jumps. After almost an hour of trying, I have yet to complete one of them successfully. I have never been told what I am doing wrong, only that each jump is "totally unsat". I cannot seem to land in the circle. The "A" key is supposed to steer left, but doesn't appear to be doing so.


I guess that's my criticism with this game (I don't know if it applies to other games as well): I don't really know what I am doing right and what I am doing wrong. And what should I do to improve. Is it really appropriate to fail a task without knowing why, or to complete a task without knowing how? That certainly wouldn't fly in education.

I will continue to maintain a semi-open mind about this...but only for two hours per week.

Student Selection #1 - ToonTalk

Citation

Kahn, Ken (1999). A Computer Game to Teach Programming. Proceedings of the National Educational Computing Conference, 1999. Retrieved Wednesday, February 11, 2009 from http://www.toontalk.com/Papers/necc99.pdf


Short Summary

I chose this article since I am presently a computer programmer presently and formerly an Assistant Professor of Information Systems. This article is about ToonTalk, "an animated interactive world inside of which one can construct a very large range of computer programs." It is designed to teach computer programming skills to grade school children.




Tasks include programming a robot to perform repetitive tasks, such as, given a box with the number 1 and the capability of moving, copying, and adding numbers, create a box with the numbers 1, 2, 4, 8, ... , 256. A programmable robot can be made to perform repetitive tasks.



A trial version of the software is available at http://www.toontalk.com/English/free.htm so I downloaded the game and played it for a couple of hours. Completing the "puzzles" does, indeed, require a programming "mindset", though I am concerned that young children may have trouble reading and understanding the instructions from the young "Martian" who directs the tasks (see instructions on image below.) The full version of the software is $14.95, and I suspect it would be worth it.




What it means to you and your educational setting or future interests.

I was pleased to be able to find a simple game that could indeed be programmed to perform repetitive tasks. If I could "make a wish" about the software, it would be to allow the player (learner) to view a text- or flowchart-equivalent of the animated program. That addition, while probably of little or no interest to the player, would facilitate its use in the classroom as a learning tool. Then a teacher could say "write a program to do (some task) in text" or "what do you think would be the outcome of this text program?"

Post script - Friday Feb 13, 2009 - I read Gee chapter 4 today, two days after my original post on ToonTalk. It has really got me thinking about concrete vs. abstract and the role games such as ToonTalk can play in making concrete that which is abstract, thereby providing "situated meanings and embodied actions", and about Gee's comment that "There is no other way to make sense (page 84)." Gee (no pun intended), I can't believe I'm letting myself get sucked into this....

Squire -- What's next -- The Digimon Divide?

Describe one way in which Squire's perspective is fundamentally different from Gee's perspective.

It strikes me that Squire takes a "radical" view that the use of video games in education as not only inevitable but essential, whereas Gee (so far) takes the more "conservative" view that educators have should view video games as an opportunity to understand aspects of play that can be used to improve education.

Squire says "...given that nearly every other medium has been used for learning, it seems self-evident that games eventually will become a part of our education system. (p. 24)"

I find the use of "self-evident" as a red flag that the author may be relying on proof by repeated assertion.

If we are to actually use games and simulations to teach, what are the barriers in your (now or future) professional environment?

My first impression was that cost would be the biggest barrier to using games and simulations to teach, and it probably is so at the current time. But as software improves, the cost of developing games will drop significantly. I think the "last" barrier to using games and simulations to teach will be the developers' imagination.

Squire uses MIT's Supercharged! to show how the best games "place[s] players systems" (emphasis added). The game was successful in teaching the physics of electrostatics. But Squire seems obsessed with the player being immersed withinin the game, and complained that Supercharged "did not include many other aspects of science learning that would be critical for less science-minded populations, such as coming to see, think, act, and be in the world as a physicist might - coming to inhabit the identity of a physicist."

As I read about Supercharged! I came up with the idea for a game called Papertrail which would follow a twenty dollar bill through its life: printed, sent to banks, given to a bank customer, used to buy fast food, given to another customer as change, deposited in a vending machine, collected, deposited, and ultimately destroyed. You could get points based on how many times you are spent. How many points can you get? Game players would learn about the federal reserve system, the banking system, and commerce. I think it's a pretty good idea for a game!


Is it possible that "games and simulations for learning" is simply a fad? How would you imagine the future of these technologies as a part (or not) of formal learning?

I have to answer the question in two parts. As for simulations, they are already being used and will always be used. As for games, they are too pervasive to be ignored. I think short games (5-10 minutes of playtime) will become popular in education, and ultimately a public domain repository of educational games will be made available, but the challenge for educators will be to identify concrete learning objectives and to make sure that the games support those objectives.

On final comment: Squire says "...games and other forms of popular culture could educationally important, raising important equity issues about who has access to such communities (page 23)." This comment reminds me of the question of access to computers and the internet: the "Digital Divide". So what's next, the "Digimon Divide"?