Inspiration is the somewhat optimistic title for the research into case studies, frameworks and design patterns.  As in much of the research into the value added by ICT to education, the answer seems to be ‘not as much as you would expect’.  The key problem seems to be the failure to identify ways of using games (in this case) to teach.  The case studies and research reviews seemed to conclude that most games were in the behaviourist mode of drill-and-practice rather than teaching or providing a constructivist environment for learning.  Was Mor’s tongue in his cheek when he identified that constructivist games were ‘mainly in research settings’ – a case maybe of researchers trying to justify their current fashion in educational theory?

Reading the National Curriculum one can understand why.  All the requirements are phrased in terms of demonstration of outcomes, with no comment on how teachers attempt to create such outcomes.  Little surprise then that teach-to-test has become endemic, it provides the answers to the questions the National Curriculum poses. The end appears to justify the means.

It has been interesting to observe the different preferences for techniques introduced in this block.  However much the course designers try to shoe-horn us into a prescribed approach, many contributors rebel because they just don’t see things that way. To quote one of the more analytical contributors ‘it didn’t seem to want to do anything for me…the whole thing leaves me quite cold. I just don’t think in this way to be honest’.  This highlights that, with an experienced cohort at MA level there are serious questions to be asked about the very prescriptive way in which this block, module and the whole MAODE edifice is structured. Should we not be expected and entitled to interpret the learning in a more individual way and, most important, in the way that adds most value to our particular needs?  If paid MAs don’t allow this, it opens the way to MOOCs and other such user-driven environments.

Mor, Y., Winners, N., Cerulli, M., Bjork, S., Alexopoulou, E., Bennerstedt, U.,Childs, M., Jonker, V., Kynigos, C., Pratt, D and Wijers, M. (2006) Learning patterns for the design and deployment  of mathematical games [Online], London, Institute of Education. Available athttp://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/4223/1/LP-LitReview-v2.pdf (accessed 24/05/13)

I enjoyed Week 15 overall.  Generating Personas has seemed a good way of capturing experience of how users or stakeholders view new developments, enabling those tests to be applied in the design of the product.  The Personas led on to Forces, conflicts and the Force Map.  The map became a little mechanistic to build but usefully showed the interaction between Personas and game design attributes.

The team has worked really well.  We could easily have agonised about roles, work division and outside distractions but instead, we have just got on with it!  Everyone has contributed showing a lot of self-motivation, leaving the team leader to steer and tidy, which Christine is doing effectively.  Good mature, self-directed stuff – what adult learners should be showing

We are now into more familiar H8XX territory – reviewing case studies and theories to see what is relevant to our design.  There is a lot out there, though one has to say that most of the more interesting approaches are research studies rather than real public games.  Mor et al. (2006) identified the combining of mathematical skills and instructional skills as the key issue but I would add game design experience to that.  It is one thing to conceptualise a game, quite another to know the tricks for putting it into practice.

I think that this is going to be the pinch point in weeks 17-19.  We will be overwhelmed with inputs and ideas and will need to focus those down to a game and game-play concept. Simultaneously however, we will be trying to learn how to put a game prototype together – an entirely different skill.  I hope it will not feel like a traditional TMA reflection – wondering if it was worth doing all the preparatory work to have so little in terms of output?

Mor, Y., Winners, N., Cerulli, M., Bjork, S., Alexopoulou, E., Bennerstedt, U.,Childs, M., Jonker, V., Kynigos, C., Pratt, D and Wijers, M. (2006) Learning patterns for the design and deployment  of mathematical games [Online], London, Institute of Education. Available at http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/4223/1/LP-LitReview-v2.pdf (accessed 24/05/13).

Positives –

I like the project and I am delighted to be in a well-balanced and proactive team.

The concept of the Design Studio seems to be well thought through, rather exhaustive in structure.  The emulation of an artistic design studio is a good idea allowing peer review and input to achieve the best outcome without sacrificing individuality.  The process design seems to allow all team members to contribute their experience.

Concerns

Is the process exhaustive or exhausting? There is not much room for instinct, flair and unconstrained brainstorming. Not technology-led but certainly rigidly process-led.  Having part of the assessment on team process is good but it deters regarding the rules as guidance rather than decrees.

As in Block 1, the required sequential team actions do not really accommodate the reality of different availabilities during the week and weekend, though we are coping.

Verdict

Positive so far.  I will interested to see if the rigour of the process produces the perceived best result. A bit like Communism – good in theory but not noted for great outcomes?

I agree that the categorisations in Salas et.al. (2005) and Kay et al. (2006) are useful competencies/behaviours within a team.  I don’t agree that all team members have to aspire to or practice all the competencies all of the time. The team leader may not want the application designer to be wasting time by simultaneously trying to exercise back-up behaviour or mutual performance monitoring.  I don’t usually like mechanistic solutions which fit people into boxes but I did find Myers-Briggs and Belbin useful in my business career.  I expect people are familiar but essentially:

• Myers Briggs methodology fits people into one of 16 personality types. Sounds crude but most people’s first reaction on reading the description of their type is ‘how on earth did they know?’.  It focuses on strengths but, as important, identifies complementary weaknesses. It helps you to accept that, if you are a good strategist/conceptual thinker you are unlikely also to be diligent at the fine detail. Hence instead of trying to hide this ‘weakness’ you strategise to accommodate it.
• Belbin identifies team skills such as ‘Resource Investigator’ and ‘Completer/Finisher’ and proposes that a good team will have a combination of such skills in its members.  Their punchline is ‘you can’t be a perfect individual but you can have a perfect team’.

Given the diverse experience of MAODE students, I think this sort of approach is relevant to team development. We can’t pick our members but we can allocate roles to relevant strengths or interests. Hence it will be appropriate not just to compare our experience but also to identify known strengths or betes noires.  We’re here to learn online education not to experiment in becoming more complete people – there’s a MOOC for that!