Notify Message
Forums
Page 1
Search
#6910014 Oct 29, 2012 at 08:59 AM · Edited over 6 years ago
Guild Officer
354 Posts
SO what exactly is he suggesting? How does this relate to learning in our classrooms?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhuOzBS_O-M

How World of Warcraft Could Save Your Business and the Economy
twitter @kzenovka
www.center4edupunx
Games MOOC Instructor and Designer
Google + gamesmooc@gmail.com



+1
#6914722 Oct 30, 2012 at 08:56 AM
Guild Officer
187 Posts
I think that it's an excellent example of how the business world is more willing to accept knowledge and skill, no matter where it came from.

Something like this, if eventually accepted by others in the business community, represents a shift in how various industries view education. It's kind of where some of the newer industries (game design, web design, etc) started from: Show me what you're capable of, not what degree you slogged through.

There are several stigma still associated with it, though. Reading through the comments at the bottom provide some interesting opposing views. Some repeat obvious negative stereotypes from the media, some are hopeful based on what they think learning to participate in this kind of collaboration. There are good points all around, actually.

-LeeDale
+1
#6916662 Oct 30, 2012 at 04:20 PM · Edited over 6 years ago
Guides
111 Posts
I like the video, the guy's a forward thinker. The comments, however, show that a bunch of people are still mired in the past. Most of them are, and I am putting this nicely, very foolish.

It's hair-pulling infuriating to see that so many people STILL think that social gaming is inherently bad, inherently leads to failure and some people - they ACTUALLY THINK THIS - believe gaming will lead to the collapse of our society. This is why what we're doing is so important. This is why things like our MOOC are SO IMPORTANT. People like us and Mr. Brown need to show the reality of games potentially being beneficial to society, not something to be shunned.
Here's to all the educated people who don't hate games!
-
+1
#6938103 Nov 04, 2012 at 07:12 PM
Initiate
45 Posts
I've become something of a John Seely Brown acolyte, watching his videos on my digital pilgrimage to the temple that is http://www.johnseelybrown.com/

In particular, Teaching 2.0 Doing More with Less discusses the way in which a kind of tribal gestalt mind develops through tinkering: appropriation, rewriting and mash-up. A group identity develops where the group attains a major achievement is achieving through individuals contributing in a variety of ways. Members gain in esteem through their contribution to the group achievement.

Is this group sense of esteem internally or externally motivated? Does it really matter if the job gets done?
(Being "down under" doesn't make me backward)
+1
#6938172 Nov 04, 2012 at 07:37 PM
Initiate
45 Posts
John Seely Brown refers to Homo Ludens by Johan Huizinga which, for the 1930s(!) was remarkably prescient. Huizinga considered humanity was undergoing a shift from Homo faber (reading man*) to Homo Ludens (game-playing man*).

Huizinga saw the distinction between spel (playfulness) and ernst (seriousness) to be breaking down. It was a charming optimism that, even as Huizinga wrote, was being shattered by the rise of fascism in Europe: that most grim and joyless of ideologies.

Will we ultimately find that the real value of play in education is in embedding those habits of flexibility, questioning, self-criticism and re-thinking that are invaluable to true democracy?

Will gamification bring us an educated populace that is "easy to lead, impossible to enslave" (Lord Brougham); or merely make of us willing slaves, fearful of the lash and eager for the leash ?


*From the Latin -- no insult intended. I, for one, welcome our new female overlords...
(Being "down under" doesn't make me backward)
+1
#6938193 Nov 04, 2012 at 07:46 PM
Initiate
45 Posts
#6938172 Michael Barry wrote:

Homo faber (reading man*) [/i]



Apologies -- Homo faber translates as "man the maker" not "man the reader".
Mea culpa, mea culpa...
(Being "down under" doesn't make me backward)
+1
#6940199 Nov 05, 2012 at 09:15 AM
Guides
561 Posts
#6938172 Michael Barry wrote:

John Seely Brown refers to Homo Ludens by Johan Huizinga which, for the 1930s(!) was remarkably prescient. Huizinga considered humanity was undergoing a shift from Homo faber (reading man*) to Homo Ludens (game-playing man*).

Huizinga saw the distinction between spel (playfulness) and ernst (seriousness) to be breaking down. It was a charming optimism that, even as Huizinga wrote, was being shattered by the rise of fascism in Europe: that most grim and joyless of ideologies.

Will we ultimately find that the real value of play in education is in embedding those habits of flexibility, questioning, self-criticism and re-thinking that are invaluable to true democracy?

Will gamification bring us an educated populace that is "easy to lead, impossible to enslave" (Lord Brougham); or merely make of us willing slaves, fearful of the lash and eager for the leash ?


*From the Latin -- no insult intended. I, for one, welcome our new female overlords...



Don't worry about the translation, my Latin is a bit rusty (9th grade), as an anthropologist, I find that many seem to feel that we are totally evolved, and that evolution is extremely slow, (example: we still have an appendix, but we do because lack of one is not evolutionarily advantageous). In reality, in nature and I think in technology as well as mental adaptation, evolution is punctuated.

In nature, with a quick environmental change, species that can adapt to the new environment (already have the characteristics or genetic mutations) live long enough to pass their genes on to the next generation. The goal of the "game of evolution" is to stay in the game.

In culture, I believe that technology is the same as the environment in nature. That is, a quick burst of technology, creates a quick change of culture and understanding. Weapons are always a good example of that, great video on that subject is "Guns, Germs and Steel," which should probably be renamed and re-edited to "Guns, Germs, Steel and Technology."

In the evolution of education technology, we have gone from oral history, to written language, and in one century we went from writing on paper or small slate tablets to writing on screens and yes, not having to be in the same room as the instructor. It is only one more leap of our use of technology to virtual worlds. I think it is the Tiwi of Australia whose cultural understanding of "before you were born, this life, and after you die," is exactly the same, there is no difference, you see the same people you live the same way. Of all cultures they are most prepared to see a virtual world the same as this one.

We are too hung up on "either/or" that it is "black/white" or "good/bad." When in fact there are so many variations between the concepts. We all can't live in the "bell" of a bell curve, some of us have to be outliers, and then the curve will flatten and we will all be the better off for it.

Wow that is a lot before coffee!
+1
#6948290 Nov 06, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Guild Officer
73 Posts
Internal or external? I'm beginning to think that there are other options. That said, does it really matter? Probably not. Awesome talking points!

#6938103 Michael Barry wrote:

I've become something of a John Seely Brown acolyte, watching his videos on my digital pilgrimage to the temple that is http://www.johnseelybrown.com/

In particular, Teaching 2.0 Doing More with Less discusses the way in which a kind of tribal gestalt mind develops through tinkering: appropriation, rewriting and mash-up. A group identity develops where the group attains a major achievement is achieving through individuals contributing in a variety of ways. Members gain in esteem through their contribution to the group achievement.

Is this group sense of esteem internally or externally motivated? Does it really matter if the job gets done?

Games Based Learning Mooc (gamesMOOC)
FRCC Humanities Instructor
The best combination of technophile and luddite

Twitter @ThereseEllis
Google+ therese.catherine.ellis@gmail.com
+0
#6951812 Nov 07, 2012 at 04:57 PM
Guides
111 Posts
#6938172 Michael Barry wrote:

Will gamification bring us an educated populace that is "easy to lead, impossible to enslave" (Lord Brougham); or merely make of us willing slaves, fearful of the lash and eager for the leash ?



Well, if modern gamers are any indication, the former is closer to the truth. Gamers like being instructed what to do ("How do we play the game? What are the objectives? What is our next goal?") but resist being ORDERED to do things. You'll suddenly get "You can't tell me what to do!" - even though they've been told what to do all along. This not merely illusion of choice either - though they'll allow themselves to be lead as long as they're enjoying it, the moment they dislike a game they will switch it off - which is really the ultimate control.
Here's to all the educated people who don't hate games!
-
+0
Page 1