The Total Learner Experience

IBM CityOne goes live

I was a bit excited this morning to see that IBM's CityOne had finally launched. I'm always a fan of innovative games with real life applications and I am currently searching for activities to use with my high school students. Billed as a SimCity-like experience, but with an educational side, I was expecting to have some fun building a city to my specifications and doing some high level problem-solving.

That build-up would indicate some disappointment-- and indeed there was. The glossy cityscape I viewed was inviting and attractive. A small icon indicated my first problem to solve. I clicked, exposing the specific city-planning issue related to water. Three solutions were presented with various pricetags. I choose the most expensive, most comprehensive solution and was presented with some boilerplate response. Mousing and clicking over the screen to find my next challenge I determined (perhaps incorrectly) that I had no more challenges. I ended this first of ten rounds thinking that I couldn't make much progress if I only had ten challenges to solve.

I made it to turn 7, barely. By this round I had begun to have challenges from all 4 areas (water, energy, retail and banking), but they all had the same basic format. There were few of the identified game attributes-- little challenge, no suspense, I had no idea what I was competing for or against and I didn't know how or why I could fail-- and I didn't really care.

I was attracted to the game because of this line from Gizmodo: "The idea here, presumably, is that it's always a good thing to educate the populace about the these sorts of problems, and, hey, who knows, someone might unwittingly stumble on a solution we can actually use." This is hard to see how that could happen  because all of the activities are call and response. There is no room or opportunity for players to create their own innovative solutions.

This seems like a marketing/training tool go awry. To launch the game I had to enter detailed personal info-- not surprising-- but the limited options for industry or occupation indicated to me that IBM had a  target audience in mind. One of the follow up questions asked you to indicate if you were a software purchase "decider". Many of the game solutions included using software (presumably developed and marketed by IBM) to clean up a variety of perceived major city issues.

It's disappointing to me that this game is so lame. I have no problem with companies reaching out through games-- I just want them to be fun. There was no fun to be had.

The iPad's Potential for Education

With the unveiling of the iPad, Apple will more than likely re-invent mobile computing once again. The real magic behind the iPhone became the App store -- it unleashed an endless supply of software -- making the smart-phone much more than just a phone... it became a "weightless office" in the palm of your hand.

The iPad widens the mobile computing ecosystem's possibilities to include usable applications for education. The iPhone is the first seemingly learner-centered mobile platform -- the gesture-based touchscreen combined with a screen size amenable to displaying content, and the Safari browser accesses the internet just like a "regular" computer. However, with its 9.7-inch multi-touch, high-definition screen, a powerful processor, and convenient and flexible form function, the iPad now becomes a perfect mobile learning device: instantly access textbooks, make annotations, connect to social learning communities, download apps with new learning content, upload your own content, watch videos, listen to podcasts, prepare assignments, etc. Sure, all these things you can do on a computer laptop... but imagine the ease of use with a device that is much more portable, feels natural in your hand, and is flexible in a multitude of "real-life" situations. No longer will you question whether or not to drag along your laptop with you -- your iPad now will be a constant -- just like your pen or pencil.

iPad-related innovations for education will widen the discussion about how we educate as well. With access to the SDK, students can build their own learning apps, or professors may be able to customize apps to present their own content in iTunesU. Even now, many are doing that and even making their content accessible to non-students.

The platform becomes a fertile playground, either for expanded functionality beyond the iPhone, or for innovations in how content is presented, and how it becomes more interactive and experiential. With location awareness, the ability to mobilize learners in remote locations can help engage distance learners as well. At first glance, you may think of the device as just another gadget, a laptop with less functionality. But remember, many naysayers doubted the impact of the iPhone. What Apple does best is understand how real people use technology, and what their expectations are from their device. A platform like the iPad releases the constraints that regular laptop technology foists upon us -- the iPad is nimble, reacts to real situations, and is so easy to use that it feels natural in your hands. That is the difference, and that is how this platform will speed up adoption of mobile learning.

Now, educators need to start figuring out how we build effective learning apps for this platform.

Pixelvader

As usual I am curious how to merge the worlds of voluntary online activity with educational outcomes. I just voluntarily spent hours playing Pixelvader for no good reason. When I get caught up in a game or other online activity like that I ask myself several questions:

• What kept me engaged?
• What did I learn and how will I use it?
• And, of course, What am I going to take away for future design?

What kept me engaged?

This game isn't rocket science (although it did have a rocket ship). You shoot stuff. Typically I am not a huge fan of shooting stuff. I have poor reaction time and seemingly no motor skills. This equals no "twitch" speed which is required by most shooting video games. However this game incorporated strategic purchasing of rocket ship accessories. Once you equipped your rocket with further weaponry, defensive gear or speed, you played a quick shooter with simple arrow key controls (no keyboard combos which I can't memorize or implement). At the each of the 10 levels you got to buy stuff.  I love buying stuff. You could go down a level and generate quick cash to earn more gear. If after a certain point you realized that your gear strategy was flawed you could reset with no penalty and try another tactic by purchasing differently. 

So for a player like me^TM the engagement factors are:

• Multiple modes of play-- There's some strategy and action.
• Low risk-- It's easy to practice at the lower levels, The game never ends until you choose, If a strategy doesn't work, it's very easy to try another one.
• Low learning curve-- There's not a big story, Gameplay was understandable and predictable.
• High feeling of success-- I beat a good numbers of levels, I understood what I needed to do in order to win when I did not, Consequences were predictable and avoidable.
• Low brain power-- I was tired and wanted to unwind, this game didn't necessitate huge thinking, but just enough to make me feel smart during late night play.

What did I learn and how will I use it?

Within the game, I remembered that sometimes it's better to be close to a large object to hit it quickly, but if it has a particular offense, it's best to step back to have greater maneuverability. Somehow that seems important as a life lesson to me this afternoon. I also determined that personally, avoidance is a more native strategy than aggression. I wish that there was some grand content takeaway that i could reference, but sadly, I haven't yet thought of a productivity correlation, but I am thinking on it and will update when I think of it.

What am I going to take away for future design?

Obviously I will consider all of the things that makes a player like me^TM remain engaged. I also rememembered that not all players are like me. But I think my biggest takeaway is this: Any game that keeps a player playing is successful. We can argue points about genres, playability, modes, all those various game-geek issues players like to argue. But, despite the fact that this game is likely no more than a 3 on imagination, innovation and creativity, I kept playing.

^{keep playing}

charming game #1

While there are plenty of games that get it wrong, I thought I might review a couple of games that get it right. Word Vine is one such game. It's premise is simple: link words to create inter-connected compound words on branching relationship. An easy level uses tree, sauce, apple, trunk. I'm stuck on a hard level with time, tower, prime, bell, cow, cash, machine, gun, minister, ivory, tower, zone. So what do I like about this game this morning (and last night, for a really long time)?

• Simple task-- It is well within my skill set to make compound words and to click and drag small icons onto a hotspot.
• "Educational"-- I'm not shooting stuff. I wouldn't be anyway, but I like figuring out this little verbal puzzle.
• Visual-- Solving the harder puzzles requires tapping into some region of the brain that handles visual relationships; it's difficult to solve the harder puzzle (at least for me) without physically (virtually) dragging the word shapes onto some of the twining branches.
• Aesthetics-- It's pretty. I like the soft greens.

I'm always trying to figure out how to combine content and gameplay. I can envision a social studies content game which links concepts, dates, and historical figures. How about a branching vine of German philosophers or early 20th Century artists?

--Dolly

Microsoft's Digital Literacy Curriculum Sucks. Surprised?

http://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenship/citizenship/giving/programs/up/digitalliteracy/default.mspx

I work as a program director for a non-profit devoted to mentoring and tech literacy in low income 7-12 graders. As such, I am often looking for useful curriculum related to a wide variety of programs, tasks and skills. I am often in debate with myself and others if it is better to provide the students with practical skills related to secretarial-type work or to explore the outer boundaries with projects in graphics, animation and web design. Our approach is to focus on allowing students to explore and produce with the more creative software while providing auxiliary work with students who see the value of learning the more practical Office suite.

Not wishing to reinvent the wheel, I regularly look for clear, self-directed lessons suited for my students. Oh, and free or cheap, because we're a non-profit. I've looked at Microsoft's Digital Literacy Curriculum several times to see if we can use it to demonstrate proficiency. Now I can hear some of my techie friends slapping themselves in the head, about to eviscerate me because I even mention the Evil Empire. Let me introduce you to the real world outside of your basement and Silicon Valley. Most people out here in the light, don't care or know about Open Source. They are just grateful that they can reliably turn on their computer and spit out some information. Their focus is on their work, not arguing about the benefits of Ubuntu versus Morphix.

Back to the Digital Literacy Curriculum, it sucks. No surprise there, it is a Microsoft product. Now I know I am late to the bandwagon, but I've still got to pile on. Everything about Microsoft sucks. I am a native proud Mac user, but practicality has required me to have a fairly good working knowledge of the Windows world. I work with Microsoft as a recipient of donated software and OSs as part of our non-profit work. Each month when I need to report our usage I curse in my head. It's almost as though they take pride in having an interface that is clunky and unusable. For a company that's flush with capital they sure are stingy with any ease of use or follow through to their systems.  The Digital Literacy Curriculum reflects this attitude. It's almost as though Microsoft is full of idea-men with no one to come back to ensure quality control. hmmmm....

I've looked at it before at work, but I wanted to give it a more detailed fish eye if I was going to record my impressions. Here on my mac computer I cannot even log into their curriculum because I don't have Internet Explorer. Really, I mean, really? Can Microsoft not see the writing on the wall. Nevermind that I'm on a Mac. What about all those people out there who are using Firefox or Chrome? (Too bad I can't round out that list with Netscape... I like 3s.) Why is it that they are so dead set on protecting their product that they cannot break their walls of paranoia and protectionism to become more welcoming and user friendly?

24 hours later...I had to reinstall IE, or maybe I didn't. It had been set to "work offline" which took a while to find. They have two tools pulldown menus that do not have the same functionality. It would be cooler to pretend like I don't have "user error" issues.  Everyone has user error issues; those of us with healthy self-image can own it. Anyway, accessed the curriculum at long last.

I was disappointed. After all my sturm und drang getting it set up, it wasn't horrible, it was just typically boring. A metallic voice read some prose to me; the sound screeched through my veins like fingernails on chalkboard. There was a lot of tasteful blue and gray on white. It was just dull. And basic. Now, I do have to consider the fact that this is designed for neophytes, people who still need basic computer skills. Just because people are ignorant shouldn't mean that they should get bad training; that's perhaps one reason that they are ignorant in the first place.

This material is clearly not current, and likely I shouldn't even be wasting breath on it. The last update was October 2007 which is so last century in Internet terms. Except it's not. I get emails regularly from Microsoft touting this curriculum. They just sent me another disk encouraging me to use it with my clients. More of the same didactic lecture and demonstration that is already failing learners all over.

--Dolly

Suck Quotient-- 2

usability	1 the actual content was fine, getting to it was an exercise in perseverance and patience.
aesthetics	2 non offensive
innovation	1 no
accuracy	4 the content was correct, just dull
fun	0 none

**Note
I was going to look at version 2 to be all fair and balanced, but while it worked when I first accessed it, once I installed the add ons that Microsoft recommended, I ended up with a black screen, no content. You win Microsoft!