Week 2: Student Presentations
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E.(2004). ROP, chapters 4, 5, 6.
4 Design
Each different definition of design has a different emphasis. S and Z emphasize meaing:
Design is the process by which a designer creates a context to be encountered by a participant, from which meaning emerges. Semiotics deals with signs and their meanings. A sign represents something other than the sign itself – the representation is the meaning of the sign. Pierces four semiotic concepts:
-A sign represents something other than itself
- tap=fire weapon, duck,etc
-Signs are interpreted
meaning emerges as players take on roles as interpreters of these signs
-Meaning results when a sign is interpreted
signs are relative – the sign stands for somebody or something in some aspect or capacity. Meaning emerges for that sign based on relationships within the system
-Context shapes interpretation.
Context and structure affect interpretation. Context is environment. Structure are the rules and guidelines that structure how signs can be combined.
Much cinema studies work in structuralism and semiotics can be applied to games through this bridge concept. In the second sample Game in ROP – by Frank Lantz, he experiments with a dual semiotics system and is a good illustration of a sign in different contexts having different meaning.
5 Systems
A system is a set of parts that interrelate to form a complex whole. Systems types include: mathematical, social, representational, etc.
Systems share these four elements:
Objects – parts, elements, or variables,
Attributes – characteristics of the system and objects
Internal relationships – relations among and between objects
Environment – context around the system
The frame of the system alters the way the elements are identified. A cultural system will have different elements than a mathematical system. Formal, experiential, and cultural systems frames interact in the following ways: formal is embedded in experiential and experiential and formal elements are both within in cultural frame. Formal systems are closed, Experiential systems can be open or closed, Cultural systems are open (open is effected by and effects outside – data and relationships move beyond the system)
6 Interactivity
Note for future design work: anatomy of a choice maps to stage actor/stage director systems of choice in beats – use for mapping narrative decision trees. Page 65 chart.
When a player interacts with the designed system of a game, meaningful play emerges.
Four modes of interactivity:
-Cognitive interactivity/interpretive participation
-Functional interactivity/utilitarian participation
-Explicit interactivity/participation with designed hoices and procedures
-Beyond-the-object interactivity – cultural participation
These modes overlap and occur simultanteously
In a designed interaction, there is an internal structure and a context giving meaning to actions. Participants have choices in interactive systems. Choices in a system can be macro or micro (think on stage of tactic and strategy arcs) – long term, versus short term progress oriented actions. The basic unit of interaction is action > outcome. Again this maps to beats in a stage scene. Beats make scenes, (sequences from scenes in a film), acts, play –
Stages derived from action >outcome interactions
1) what happened prior to the choice opportunity given to player
2) How is this possibility communicated to player?
3) How did player make the choice?
4) Result of choice? How will it affect future choices (ask about this – regarding long term)
5) How is result conveyed (stage is all talk, film ideally picture/action, game is... audio/visual/textual, kino-haptic?)
Internal events is an input to the system – system accepts
External events – choice represented to player
Space of possibility of a game is all possible meanings and actions that can emerge (relate to semiotic fields as well as meaning, design, sytems, and interactivity).
Smith & Ragan (1999). Instructional Design. New York: Wiley. [ Chapters 1, 2 ] -- alternative download site: [ Chapters 1, 2 ]
Chapter 1
The term instructional design refers to the systematic and reflective process of translating principles of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials, activities, information resources, and evaluation. Instruction is the intentional facilitation of learning towards identified learning goals. Design implies a systematic or intensive planning and the ideation process prior to the develoment of something or the execution of some plan in order to solve a problem. Design implies precision, care, expertise. Design also implies/demands Creativity. An instructional design has a primary structure: Goals, Strategy, Evaluation
Evaluation versus assement: eval is of the instructional design wheras assessment is eval of the learning.
Chapter 2
This chapter delineates and makes distinctions between philosophies of instructional design and theories of instructional design. It gives a rationale for knowing and using philosophy and theory – for communication, for providing rationale, and also implies the imporantance of knowing where thinkers have already travelled on the topic.
Philsophies:
Constructivism/rationalism – reason is the source of knowledge – Empiricism – sensory experience is the source of knowledge – Pragmatism – aquired through experience, interpreted through reason
Note:
many constructivists reject the explanations of learning cognitions offered by information processing theory but have provide no theory themselves
Note: bottom of 18 blocked out on problem solving…
Theory:
An organized set of statements that allows us to explain, predict, or control events
Theories:
Behaviorism: Skinner – influence of the environment
Cognitive learning theories – thinking - constuctivist approach (though constructivists reject information processing theory!?) – more oriented to the learner than the behavior. Discussion of long term/encoding memory versus short term/working memory. Retreival, models (load theory?)
Developmental: Piaget (learn when biologically ready to learn) and Vigotzsky (scaffolding to next level)
Instructional theory – Blooms model of mastery learning
Overall question I have re: instructional design – knowing what outcomes we want versus Stuart Brown and Adele Diamond on the value of Play for learning with a goaless approach - can instructional design be built around a goaless approach – as the design goal itself? my instinct says yes. Also, I believe that if the mechanic is fun, I don't think it matters - here novelty, difficulty, and humor/wish fulfillment are key.
GAME:
Third World Farmer
called both a simulation and a game
(Simulation) – but it can be beaten, I’ve done it once, so I’ll list it as a game.
Premise, make buy and planting and general living decisions as a third world farmer (now should be called “developing world” to stay alive and try to keep your famly alive. This is not easy to do , given plagues, bandits, corrupt politicians, bad weather, and disease.
I first found this game though games for change, and became obsessed with it for a few weeks. I wanted to beat the system – if has intermittent reinforcement which is addictive. I wasn’t sure I could beat the game until one day, I happened to do so. From a design perspective, there was learning built into the system, teaching the plight and struggle of the Third World Farmer, role playing and a variety of choices. Random elements sometimes made the game frustrating because it’s hard to stay alive more than 20 turns. Luck plays a major role. I believe that part of the design that is compelling is the detail and the ability to find more details as I proceeded. For example, I learned about the family the more I played and clicked on them, revealing that I could educate them, give medicine to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment