Educators look at the time students spend in video games, and of course wish that these students would have the same level of engagement in traditional learning as a game.
There are several problems with this.
1. Video games often do not successfully mirror real-life decisions. I *know* I am playing a video game. I might be upset that things don't go well, but it is nothing like getting a bad grade on a project I have spent some time on.
2. Most educational video games suck. They lag behind cutting edge stuff. The most engaging games often are the most controversial.
3. Educators don't play video games. They have not immersed themselves in that environment. They read books, talk to game designers, but they often don't really take time (and I mean a lot of time) to play, observe and engage.
4. Educational experiences often do not successfully lend themselves to game technology as it exists today. Using a 3d engine to hammer out some sort of social construct is a good first stab, but students see it for what it is -- candy coated spinach.
The real problems are:
1. Teachers shouldn't be making the games. Students should be. Let them build rule sets, simulations that other students play, let them work through the difficulty of making something that is engaging and tells a story. The bad news is that this takes time.
2. It is tacked on. We are stuck with the same old educational system that hasn't budged since the last big innovation - in my opinion, 100 years ago when progressive education (Dewey) was in vogue. No child left behind is rooted in thinking from the late 1800's, cursed with the desire to teach things that are easy to quantify, easy to test. Our testing tools and learning expectations shape how we teach.
3. There is a denial of multiple forms of literacy. Visual literacy -- it is quite dead in a time when more than ever before it is needed. This is a much longer posting, but go read some Barbara Stafford if you haven't already. Games hook right into visual literacy, but they don't go far enough. It is a passive form of literacy. Students need to make to learn, and that takes time, and time is expensive.
I wince everytime I hear about 2nd life as an educational environment. 2nd life is very fake, a myopic contraption that reinforces specific assumptions - such as the only viable economic system in the world is capitalism. Students don't get a chance to see all the possibilities. Unfortunately most educators are blind to this. I will be writing more about 2nd life soon.
James Paul Gee is a good place to start -- but I think people are being too literal. We should look at games, and learn from them what helps people learn. It doesn't mean that we need to make video games to teach kids -- but that we need to look at successful ones (including Vice City) and figure out what works, and how that can be applied to learning.
My guess is the attraction of using video games to teach is the same as any other technology that is thrown at the task of teaching kids -- it is always about scaling. If we sit students in front of "learning simulations" then we may need fewer teachers, or we can have bigger class sizes. I am not denying that the use of something such as the eternal classic SimCity can't be valuable. If I had a kid, darned right I would have them playing Sim City, but we would play it together, and talk about it. I don't think this can happen in a class of 30 students.
--hal
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Saturday, March 17, 2007
ViaTube!
ViaCom last week chose to sue YouToogle for 1 gazillion jillion dollars due to illegal posting of content, notably content such as small chunks from the Daily show.
Wow. I could have predicted that!
So -- I have been saying this again and again -- it is almost like the Dinosaurs saying --"Hey, do you guys feel a slight dip in the temperature?".
They chose to go after the biggest target for the obvious reason. Precedence. It gives Viacom all it needs to get everyone else to knuckle under. After all, the law is clearly on their sides, and it is not, I am sure that the laws can be changed to ensure that!
IS there lost revenue from a 3 minute clip from a half hour show? I would guess not. In fact, it is easy to make the argument that it actually helps Viacom. It seems to me like they have to draw the line in the sand right now, even if that line is 3 feet out of the shoreline, and into the water.
Is it a couldashouldawoulda? You bet. Viacom has to clear the decks of potential competitors. They have the partnership with Apple/iTunes -- and sure -- they are looking down the road at their own initiative to distribute content online. This is likely the only window of opportunity they will have to take on their nearest competitor, which right now is much much bigger than Viacom's own eventual scheme could ever be, for it is tied to old business models which are quickly being eroded by new models. We are back into the era of advertising supported entertainment, a familiar ground -- but without the opportunity to sell people things they might already be able to get for free.
The twist of course is that the revisiting of the advertising supported model is that it is the audience that decides what will survive and which will not. This happens indirectly through arcane ratings systems -- but the directness of popularity ratings in YouTube is merciless. If something sucks then it doesn't live for long. At least a mid-season replacement series has 3 months to prove itself (or maybe not).
The smart thing, of course, for Viacom is to ride the wave. They have stuff that people like so much that they will take time out of their busy day to re-edit, excerpt and post. This is the participatory culture that everyone talked about happening right now. It makes everyone a potential media conglomerate. This is a very very very bad thing for horizontal structures like Viacom -- it means that the content producers -- which Viacom either pays or contracts to create content -- are free to cut the middleman out -- Viacom being the middleman here. That day is rapidly approaching. This is bad bad bad.
The funny part is that Viacom and Google will come up with some sort of agreement that will stave things off for a little while, a little dam made of mud that keeps the flood waters at bay for....perhaps an hour or so? Google probably understands this much better than Viacom.
Wow. I could have predicted that!
So -- I have been saying this again and again -- it is almost like the Dinosaurs saying --"Hey, do you guys feel a slight dip in the temperature?".
They chose to go after the biggest target for the obvious reason. Precedence. It gives Viacom all it needs to get everyone else to knuckle under. After all, the law is clearly on their sides, and it is not, I am sure that the laws can be changed to ensure that!
IS there lost revenue from a 3 minute clip from a half hour show? I would guess not. In fact, it is easy to make the argument that it actually helps Viacom. It seems to me like they have to draw the line in the sand right now, even if that line is 3 feet out of the shoreline, and into the water.
Is it a couldashouldawoulda? You bet. Viacom has to clear the decks of potential competitors. They have the partnership with Apple/iTunes -- and sure -- they are looking down the road at their own initiative to distribute content online. This is likely the only window of opportunity they will have to take on their nearest competitor, which right now is much much bigger than Viacom's own eventual scheme could ever be, for it is tied to old business models which are quickly being eroded by new models. We are back into the era of advertising supported entertainment, a familiar ground -- but without the opportunity to sell people things they might already be able to get for free.
The twist of course is that the revisiting of the advertising supported model is that it is the audience that decides what will survive and which will not. This happens indirectly through arcane ratings systems -- but the directness of popularity ratings in YouTube is merciless. If something sucks then it doesn't live for long. At least a mid-season replacement series has 3 months to prove itself (or maybe not).
The smart thing, of course, for Viacom is to ride the wave. They have stuff that people like so much that they will take time out of their busy day to re-edit, excerpt and post. This is the participatory culture that everyone talked about happening right now. It makes everyone a potential media conglomerate. This is a very very very bad thing for horizontal structures like Viacom -- it means that the content producers -- which Viacom either pays or contracts to create content -- are free to cut the middleman out -- Viacom being the middleman here. That day is rapidly approaching. This is bad bad bad.
The funny part is that Viacom and Google will come up with some sort of agreement that will stave things off for a little while, a little dam made of mud that keeps the flood waters at bay for....perhaps an hour or so? Google probably understands this much better than Viacom.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Access Disrupts
I think about this a lot, in fact this is likely one of the most basic things that motivate me.
I am for access. When a technology becomes common as dirt, then it is significant. HD is cool and all, but when you can't buy a standard resolution video camera because HD is so cheap, then HD will have a big impact. That is just beginning to happen.
There is a lot of resistance to this. Part is built on assumptions previously held about how something should work. This can be technology, this can be a medium. I like to talk about how Michael Moore broke the documentary forever. There really was no illusion of objectivity before, but putting the cameraman into the story as an actor -- well that changed things forever. The illusion of the impartial observer is broken, but a new illusion is born, that we are seeing a well thought out, well considered story. That may be true. Or we may search for meaning, and make our own sense out of it. But the important tie-in here is that Michael Moore could not have accomplished what he did in Roger and Me without cheap, affordable video technology.
This forum discussion really got be thinking about access. I find this bit interesting:
Well, I am in Art + Design. Perhaps I am one of those interesting people with "interesting" ideas. I maintain that audience (perhaps another antiquated term -- can we talk about the individual?) often doesn't know what it wants.
I am in the market for a new video camera. I sold my tape based camera 4-5 years ago. I did this for several reasons, most important was the most practical; I had grown tired of shooting video. This had been an old thing with me, going back 15 years or more when I shot/edited video for money. I began to see it as a mechanistic process. It almost killed it for me.
The camera intrudes. People do not like it. Michael Moore used that to his advantage, a weapon of intimidation at times. I want to avoid that, instead drift into the background. I am not being coy here. I understand that I drive the camera, and I understand the audience gets that too.
However, in shooting Ideation a year and a half ago, I used a cheap Pentax Optio MX that shot sort of mediocre NTSC resolution camera. It looks like a remediated Super 8 Movie camera, and that is exactly what it is.
The inspiration for working this way comes directly from French New Wave filmmaking. The loose group of movie makers were simply taking advantage of the fact that film technology had become quite affordable, if not quite perfect. It didn't need to be, and the imperfections could in the end be part of the presentation.
I think things like the Pentax Optio MX and the Sanyo HD1a represent something that purists will hate. It is not state of the art. It is cheap. It has noticeable flaws. It will end up the hands of everyone.
I heard this same discussion 6-8 years ago when MiniDV tape first showed up. It was not "broadcast quality", the video professionals would tell me. Really, how could a cheap consumer camera compete with a $10k Sony Betacam camera.
Access. It Disrupts. People get that.
Okay, enough. History is littered with this stuff.
I think the future is indeed form and motion. It is something we want to utilize. Just like the cell phone lets us of sort of teleport (at least our voice), cameras let us manipulate time, light and space. That is access. It is disruptive. It is profound. As I mebtioned in my last posting, media changes people's perception forever. There is no going back.
--hal
I am for access. When a technology becomes common as dirt, then it is significant. HD is cool and all, but when you can't buy a standard resolution video camera because HD is so cheap, then HD will have a big impact. That is just beginning to happen.
There is a lot of resistance to this. Part is built on assumptions previously held about how something should work. This can be technology, this can be a medium. I like to talk about how Michael Moore broke the documentary forever. There really was no illusion of objectivity before, but putting the cameraman into the story as an actor -- well that changed things forever. The illusion of the impartial observer is broken, but a new illusion is born, that we are seeing a well thought out, well considered story. That may be true. Or we may search for meaning, and make our own sense out of it. But the important tie-in here is that Michael Moore could not have accomplished what he did in Roger and Me without cheap, affordable video technology.
This forum discussion really got be thinking about access. I find this bit interesting:
That's the problem, I've been to Arts college as well, and you find yourself surrounded by some pretty "interesting" people in class, and giving the classes (well, especially in some parts of Australia) who have some "interesting" ideas that are totally unrepresentative of what the audience wants ;
Well, I am in Art + Design. Perhaps I am one of those interesting people with "interesting" ideas. I maintain that audience (perhaps another antiquated term -- can we talk about the individual?) often doesn't know what it wants.
I am in the market for a new video camera. I sold my tape based camera 4-5 years ago. I did this for several reasons, most important was the most practical; I had grown tired of shooting video. This had been an old thing with me, going back 15 years or more when I shot/edited video for money. I began to see it as a mechanistic process. It almost killed it for me.
The camera intrudes. People do not like it. Michael Moore used that to his advantage, a weapon of intimidation at times. I want to avoid that, instead drift into the background. I am not being coy here. I understand that I drive the camera, and I understand the audience gets that too.
However, in shooting Ideation a year and a half ago, I used a cheap Pentax Optio MX that shot sort of mediocre NTSC resolution camera. It looks like a remediated Super 8 Movie camera, and that is exactly what it is.
The inspiration for working this way comes directly from French New Wave filmmaking. The loose group of movie makers were simply taking advantage of the fact that film technology had become quite affordable, if not quite perfect. It didn't need to be, and the imperfections could in the end be part of the presentation.
I think things like the Pentax Optio MX and the Sanyo HD1a represent something that purists will hate. It is not state of the art. It is cheap. It has noticeable flaws. It will end up the hands of everyone.
I heard this same discussion 6-8 years ago when MiniDV tape first showed up. It was not "broadcast quality", the video professionals would tell me. Really, how could a cheap consumer camera compete with a $10k Sony Betacam camera.
Access. It Disrupts. People get that.
Okay, enough. History is littered with this stuff.
I think the future is indeed form and motion. It is something we want to utilize. Just like the cell phone lets us of sort of teleport (at least our voice), cameras let us manipulate time, light and space. That is access. It is disruptive. It is profound. As I mebtioned in my last posting, media changes people's perception forever. There is no going back.
--hal
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Illinois secedes from Myspace
In a bold act, this bill proposes to block access to social computing sites in all public schools and libraries.
Most will focus on the difficulty of using technology to solve a problem. Some will decry the impingement of liberties. I won't deny that either is not important.
For myself, it is another signpost. Things are changing. I've talked about media changing, our expectations of technology changing. Etc.
This is a moment that illustrates how far we have come. Myspace is just another mashup, one of many to come and go at the end of the day. What it represents is not new at all.
The collision of internet space and education space is spectacular right now. I can't believe that no one has noticed this. It is well beyond the blah blah of netgen bs, which is a term coined by the plus 40 crowd in an attempt to understand the sub 30 somethings on their terms (pejoratives like multitasking, short attention). Where is visual learning? Where is the old school making stuff to understand concepts?
Things have changed. Things will continue to change. Netgen denies this in my opinion. The term is for those that analyze, without really understanding that it is not a trend, but continuation. Media and technology can have profound impact on how we see the world in ways that are irreversible. Books change people's lives. Movies do that too. Of course Myspace and other things will have the same effect.
This bill is of course stupid. But it will come up again. People will talk about it. Maybe someone will actually succeed in passing and implementing it. It really won't have much impact in the end, and maybe the person who drafted it understood that -- it's just a cheap attempt to get some cred.
But the fact that it has gotten this far is important. Something is being said here. And it will come back again.
--hal
Most will focus on the difficulty of using technology to solve a problem. Some will decry the impingement of liberties. I won't deny that either is not important.
For myself, it is another signpost. Things are changing. I've talked about media changing, our expectations of technology changing. Etc.
This is a moment that illustrates how far we have come. Myspace is just another mashup, one of many to come and go at the end of the day. What it represents is not new at all.
The collision of internet space and education space is spectacular right now. I can't believe that no one has noticed this. It is well beyond the blah blah of netgen bs, which is a term coined by the plus 40 crowd in an attempt to understand the sub 30 somethings on their terms (pejoratives like multitasking, short attention). Where is visual learning? Where is the old school making stuff to understand concepts?
Things have changed. Things will continue to change. Netgen denies this in my opinion. The term is for those that analyze, without really understanding that it is not a trend, but continuation. Media and technology can have profound impact on how we see the world in ways that are irreversible. Books change people's lives. Movies do that too. Of course Myspace and other things will have the same effect.
This bill is of course stupid. But it will come up again. People will talk about it. Maybe someone will actually succeed in passing and implementing it. It really won't have much impact in the end, and maybe the person who drafted it understood that -- it's just a cheap attempt to get some cred.
But the fact that it has gotten this far is important. Something is being said here. And it will come back again.
--hal
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Convergency
Convergency typically represents combining of functionality of several components, tasks or media into a single point. Typically we are talking about a device, because we by nature focus on the technology because it is tangible and finite.
But convergency really represents something else. The device is really an artifact, a result of convergency.
These are not dictionary definitions. You won't get those from me.
Convergency represents several things.
Combination of forms of media and delivery. Television and social networking converged in American Idol.
Programming and Visual Art combined to make Photoshop.
It is more than just a fusion of things; it's the isotopes that get created. IT IS THE REAL CONVERGENCE.
High Definition TV sets have both a VGA and DVI port on them. It is available but not commonplace for things like DVD players, cable boxes. It is there because the intent was to hook up a computer or device based on a computer.
But is not so that you can run windows, or even windows media center.
What it represents is that content can come from somewhere else than cable, satellite or over the air. It can come from the internet.
This is convergence. It is not about the TV, the Tivo or the couch. It is about melding of mixed media, and flat publishing. The context for what a TV represents is modified. It becomes a device that is tremendously expanded in content. And you (pointing finger) can publish content that others can watch.
This is the challenge for education. The output are not podcasts. It is making them. Having students make them. Making sense of the opportunities, helping people think and understand (in both logical and illogical sense) what it means to be not just a consumer, but a creator and publisher. The TV set is just a vessel. The ipod is just a vessel. We tell the story.
(Deep Breath)
--hal
But convergency really represents something else. The device is really an artifact, a result of convergency.
These are not dictionary definitions. You won't get those from me.
Convergency represents several things.
Combination of forms of media and delivery. Television and social networking converged in American Idol.
Programming and Visual Art combined to make Photoshop.
It is more than just a fusion of things; it's the isotopes that get created. IT IS THE REAL CONVERGENCE.
High Definition TV sets have both a VGA and DVI port on them. It is available but not commonplace for things like DVD players, cable boxes. It is there because the intent was to hook up a computer or device based on a computer.
But is not so that you can run windows, or even windows media center.
What it represents is that content can come from somewhere else than cable, satellite or over the air. It can come from the internet.
This is convergence. It is not about the TV, the Tivo or the couch. It is about melding of mixed media, and flat publishing. The context for what a TV represents is modified. It becomes a device that is tremendously expanded in content. And you (pointing finger) can publish content that others can watch.
This is the challenge for education. The output are not podcasts. It is making them. Having students make them. Making sense of the opportunities, helping people think and understand (in both logical and illogical sense) what it means to be not just a consumer, but a creator and publisher. The TV set is just a vessel. The ipod is just a vessel. We tell the story.
(Deep Breath)
--hal
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Doug Engelbart: The Demo
| If you have never seen this, I recommend hanging with it as long as you can. It is much like science fiction in my mind. I also recommend reading the companion piece "Augmenting Human Intellect". --hal (thank goodness for google video) | |
Monday, January 01, 2007
10 Stunning Predictions!
1. Apple will ship a phone, but without FCC approval, it won't be ready in January. It will be less than people will expect, because that is what apple does well. Zune vs. iPod? iPod has fewer features, but is thereby more focused on the 90% of what the device will be used for. It will not run Mac OS X. It will not be a PDA, but will run a form of dashboard widgets (remember Nokia's apple technology based browser?), will talk to all the iApps, with a value-added proposition tie-in to .Mac accounts (online chat, email, blogging, image/video sharing). Specific hardware details? Who knows? My hunch is that they won't launch their own network aka ESPN, Disney or Helio, by buying services from someone else. It would solve some problems but create others. They may simply sell it outright, an unlocked device that will be a $150 premium over the price of the equivalent storage iPod Nano. It will be perceived as an iPod with something extra, so people won't wince at the price. Very few in the US will buy a $500 smartphone, but they will sign a 2 year contract to get a discount on one. Apple's strategy will be a value proposition -- if you will spend $249.00 for a nano, it's not a big leap to the same capacity, but with a phone built in, and some nice mobile focused functionality (again, simple, simple simple!). It won't be called the iPhone for sure.
2. The other bit of Apple news has been much less discussed. What is with Apple's online TV strategy? Apple has shown a preview of a set top box, iTV (or MacTV, or whatever it's called)? It will be unveiled next week. Watch for a tie-in with Google/YouTube, and then consider Google/YouTube and Apple's partnerships with industry. Suddenly, a competitor to traditional broadcast invades the living room, and it's appeal is that it is not solely a trojan horse delivering DRM laden content (that will be Microsoft's job), but will strike the same balance as the iPod -- for fee content that is mildly locked down, and lots of stuff that people can just watch for free. Expect to see tie-ins with traditional broadcasts looking for new outlets for content. Some customers will drop cable/sat, get over the air digital TV and iTV to supplement programming, perhaps a Netflix account, and never look back.
3. Microsoft's Vista rollout will be mostly uneventful, but uptake will be very slow after the initial spike, because many people will need to upgrade their computer, and like the move from Win2k to XP, it simply is not a compelling argument for upgrade. Vista will be successful, but it really is the last gasp, a chapter in the history of Microsoft that demonstrates that things have to be done differently in the future.
4. Everyone will be attempting to figure out how to tap into social computing. Expect to see a lot of very dumb variants on YouTube, MySpace, meetups, Amateur Music, Six Degrees of Separation stuff. Business will see it as a captive audience to market to. Education will really struggle with this one -- there will be attempts to apply social computing to traditional semester segmentation, and it won't work of course, because these things are like coral reefs, they take time to grow, and can die quickly. Throwing a bunch of old tires in the same old sea won't make it happen faster. Worse, some of the best aspects of these online entities work against education's standard operating procedure - the one to many approach (lecture, etc).
5. Linux will still not invade the desktop, but Mac OS X will continue to make modest gains in numbers.
6. Nintendo Wii will outsell the PS3 for some time to come, as the DS has outsold the PSP, because it is less expensive and appeals to a much wider audience. Sony will release a new PSP. It will probably still have UMD although Sony should kill it, it will have an HD as well, because Sony is going into the downloadable media market (video, audio and games) and it believe it needs to turn the PSP into the target platform. They need to partner with Apple, but Apple won't share the sandbox outright.
7. The Zune will get a big software upgrade that fixes it's most egregious problems, and opens up capabilities for it's built in wifi, plus some tie-ins to Vista. The brown zune will disappear, and in it's place will come some color that is actually appealing to people who might buy a digital media player.
8. Accessibility will continue to make strides due to embracing of more fluid ways of structuring and displaying content (been talking about this for a while). CSS is now an expectation, not an extra. Expect to hear the old saw "maintainable code" become the mantra of web designers, simply because sites have become so complicated.
9. RSS everything. It will show up freakin everywhere, even where it may not make sense, simply because it will be so easy to do. It will be the equivalent of bran or no-carb diet (enhanced with RSS!).
10. We will still be in Iraq in December 2007, and it won't look much better than it does now.
--hal
2. The other bit of Apple news has been much less discussed. What is with Apple's online TV strategy? Apple has shown a preview of a set top box, iTV (or MacTV, or whatever it's called)? It will be unveiled next week. Watch for a tie-in with Google/YouTube, and then consider Google/YouTube and Apple's partnerships with industry. Suddenly, a competitor to traditional broadcast invades the living room, and it's appeal is that it is not solely a trojan horse delivering DRM laden content (that will be Microsoft's job), but will strike the same balance as the iPod -- for fee content that is mildly locked down, and lots of stuff that people can just watch for free. Expect to see tie-ins with traditional broadcasts looking for new outlets for content. Some customers will drop cable/sat, get over the air digital TV and iTV to supplement programming, perhaps a Netflix account, and never look back.
3. Microsoft's Vista rollout will be mostly uneventful, but uptake will be very slow after the initial spike, because many people will need to upgrade their computer, and like the move from Win2k to XP, it simply is not a compelling argument for upgrade. Vista will be successful, but it really is the last gasp, a chapter in the history of Microsoft that demonstrates that things have to be done differently in the future.
4. Everyone will be attempting to figure out how to tap into social computing. Expect to see a lot of very dumb variants on YouTube, MySpace, meetups, Amateur Music, Six Degrees of Separation stuff. Business will see it as a captive audience to market to. Education will really struggle with this one -- there will be attempts to apply social computing to traditional semester segmentation, and it won't work of course, because these things are like coral reefs, they take time to grow, and can die quickly. Throwing a bunch of old tires in the same old sea won't make it happen faster. Worse, some of the best aspects of these online entities work against education's standard operating procedure - the one to many approach (lecture, etc).
5. Linux will still not invade the desktop, but Mac OS X will continue to make modest gains in numbers.
6. Nintendo Wii will outsell the PS3 for some time to come, as the DS has outsold the PSP, because it is less expensive and appeals to a much wider audience. Sony will release a new PSP. It will probably still have UMD although Sony should kill it, it will have an HD as well, because Sony is going into the downloadable media market (video, audio and games) and it believe it needs to turn the PSP into the target platform. They need to partner with Apple, but Apple won't share the sandbox outright.
7. The Zune will get a big software upgrade that fixes it's most egregious problems, and opens up capabilities for it's built in wifi, plus some tie-ins to Vista. The brown zune will disappear, and in it's place will come some color that is actually appealing to people who might buy a digital media player.
8. Accessibility will continue to make strides due to embracing of more fluid ways of structuring and displaying content (been talking about this for a while). CSS is now an expectation, not an extra. Expect to hear the old saw "maintainable code" become the mantra of web designers, simply because sites have become so complicated.
9. RSS everything. It will show up freakin everywhere, even where it may not make sense, simply because it will be so easy to do. It will be the equivalent of bran or no-carb diet (enhanced with RSS!).
10. We will still be in Iraq in December 2007, and it won't look much better than it does now.
--hal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)