melaniemcbride.net

In my ongoing quest to locate the pedagogical value of games (via game play, research and dialalogue), I have come across an interesting example of situated learning in WoW: The random dungeon, or “PUG.”

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, here is an excellent and educator friendly overview written by my edu-guildie, Grenhilda:

“A PUG is a “pick-up-group,” or an informal group of players who don’t already know each other, who are working together on a quest or an instance. PUGs can teach you A LOT about how to play your class and how to interact with others in the game. To be a good pugger, you should know a bit about PUG ettiquette and also a little something about the different roles you might be expected to play in a group.”

Rather than duplicating Gren’s overview, I’d like to talk about some of my own, personal, observations and experiences in PUGS and why I think they have value as a form of (radical) gaming-focused PD for educators. Yes, this post is about our / your learning – not that of our students. And when it comes to gaming and education, I feel that it’s educators – not students – who are most in need of emergent “literacy.”

And before I say anything further, the first and foremost reason you should explore PUGs? they’re F-U-N.

Continue reading Situated Learning in WoW: Exploring Random dungeons (PUGs)

My first machinima – Virtual World Learning v. H1N1

The above “news report” on H1N1 and virtual worlds is part of an assignment I just completed for an additional qualification course in Media at York University. The idea was to create two news reports in two different media. I chose to do a print story (forthcoming) and an emergent media form: machinima. As n00b as this piece is, it took me the better part of last week and most of this weekend to complete.

In addition to hooking up my guest with the right speech and arm animations (to make his avatar move and talk) I had innumerable challenges with Wegame, the only free gaming capture tool that plays well with SL (if you can think of another, better one, please comment below!). Given my limited movie editing capabilities I put the project together in Windows Movie Maker.

Just imagine what students could create!

What excites me the most is the prospect of doing stuff like this with students.

Unfortunately, teaching in the public system at the secondary level means I am not allowed to take my students into spaces like Second Life (or, at least, not that I am yet aware). So perhaps we can start by creating “remix” machinima using sampled, public domain content from the Internet Archive. I’ll post a lesson plan when I get there.
Continue reading My first machinima

Last week, one of my media course (ed PD) classmates talked about the ongoing struggle to help students make sense of the flood of information online. She cited a negative experience with wikipedia, which resulted in an energetic exchange about the merits (and challenges) with open online content.

It’s not about “authority” nor should it be

As a long time defender of the open web and open content, I wanted to point out that the educational bias towards “authoritative” or “received” sources, though relevant, is also highly political/ideological – especially in relation to emergent sources of knowledge (i.e., Open Content). Ideological in the contexts of: 1) who has access or control of the means of knowledge power and production 2) who endorses or authorizes those voices and 3) “what” forms are accepted as “valid”.

Knowledge power paradigm shifts

The power paradigm shift is not unique to education (see also Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions), it is the source of the crisis in every form of traditional knowledge power – from publishing and media/print news to television and, finally, education – power bases that are currently disintegrating under their inability to evolve from top down to bottom up models (or a healthy blend of both). Things are changing – rapidly. And much of the change concerns shifting power bases. In my view, it’s very simple: adapt or perish (though one can adapt critically and with creativity – adaptation mustn’t be confused with unthinking, mindless adoption).

Scaffolding “open” (is the answer)

To me, the bigger question here is who and what, precisely, are “authoritative” and why? And are the structures supporting their authority really truly agile enough to ensure their relevance (i.e., traditional peer review process v. online – and open – models where hundreds of thousands of people can evaluate and rate a document along with a selected few).

Many of my students are well aware of my issues with the “conspiracy” sites they enjoy visiting. I’ve explained why these sites are bogus – they get that. And they’re familiar with the alternatives – thing is, as a group of marginalised students who have experienced systemic racism and other inequities they distrust a lot of what we might call authority. Problem is, the depth of prior knowledge required to unpack the real reasons for these inequities isn’t easily (or quickly) acquired. And without that prior knowledge, the idea that a few websites could explain it all via an entertaining conspiracy is more appealing. Young people are looking for alternatives — alternatives to old power bases. We must teach inquiry and critical thinking, not deference to “approved” sources.

The issue with wikipedia isn’t credibility or merit, it’s how to effectively use an open source like this. For example, going directly to the “external links” and “notes” sections at the bottom of every wikipedia page, habits of traditional scholarly critique (i.e., checking citations, sources and the end notes – which allows you to discern the bias, depth or quality of research). This way, you, the reader, can go directly to the “legitimate” sources and verify their value or merit for yourself.

Crap detection (doesn’t mean dissing the web)

Teachers (and students) alike need to learn a new literacy. The literacy to “detect crap” online – without simply reproducing old power structures (or dissing emergent, democratic knowledge models). And this is where I turn it over to Howard Rheingold who makes sense of the why and how of crap detection with the most seasoned perspective I’ve seen. From his City Brights blog:

“Unless a great many people learn the basics of online crap detection and begin applying their critical faculties en masse and very soon, I fear for the future of the Internet as a useful source of credible news, medical advice, financial information, educational resources, scholarly and scientific research. Some critics argue that a tsunami of hogwash has already rendered the Web useless. I disagree. We are indeed inundated by online noise pollution, but the problem is soluble. The good stuff is out there if you know how to find and verify it. Basic information literacy, widely distributed, is the best protection for the knowledge commons: A sufficient portion of critical consumers among the online population can become a strong defense against the noise-death of the Internet.

…

The issue of info pollution has been on my mind since at least 1994, when I wrote “The Tragedy of the Electronic Commons” about the infamous Canter and Siegel – the first Internet spammers. A few years later, I personally confronted the importance of teaching information literacy to 14 year olds when I watched my daughter come of age at the same time online search engines became available. I sat down in front of the circa-1999 computer with my daughter and explained that most of the books she could get from the library could be counted on to be factually accurate. But when you enter words into a search engine, there is no guarantee that your search will lead you to accurate information. “You have to do some investigation before you accept anything you find online,” I warned her.”

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/rheingold/detail?entry_id=42805#ixzz0WrD4odNB

As a media producer, educator and outspoken advocate of emergent media pedagogy (social and participatory media, Remix culture, Open Source publishing and production, Creative Commons open licensing and citizen media in all forms), I’m delighted to announce the launch of my (full disclosure) partner, author, Liam O’Donnell’s newest graphic novel, Media Meltdown. While I am indeed biased, the new graphic novel (for readers aged 8-14) speaks to the most critical aspects of media literacy in fun, engaging and pedagogically relevant ways.

The publisher has also provided a variety of materials – including the entire book and supplementary materials for EDUCATORS! - at the online site that accompanies the book launch. Here’s more info from the site:

As an educator, you understand the value of teaching your students to become media literate. Today’s world is radically different than the one most of us grew up in. It’s important for us to help kids learn to competently navigate the issues surrounding Internet safety, privacy, cyberbullying and online marketing.

Kids are relatively inexperienced in the game of life, and they often lack the ability to evaluate information critically. But they’re no less subjected to pushy marketing or skewed information than the rest of us. It’s incumbent upon us—their teachers, librarians and parents—to equip them with the tools that will help them make good decisions in the face of biased, misleading or hateful information.

Literacy today means more than just knowing how to read and write. For centuries, literate people were those who could read and understand texts. Nowadays, visual images are equally important in conveying ideas. But who’s teaching kids to read the meaning of visual images?

You are. Media education is powerful, offering you dozens of opportunities to capitalize on the “teachable moments” in your students’ world. It’s relevant to kids’ lives; it integrates with every subject across the curriculum; it develops critical thinking; and it’s easy to bring into your classroom. Best of all, kids enjoy media education, because they get to discuss and examine what they are naturally drawn to!

A few key points to examine with students:

1. Media do not represent reality. They convey carefully crafted ideas and information from one perspective.
2. Most new information comes to us through newspapers, the Internet, television, radio, advertising or magazines. Unless we learn from personal experience, we find out about events and ideas through the media.
3. Media use specific techniques to create emotional effects. Ever cried at a movie? Laughed at an ad? Our feelings are easily manipulated. The media use this fact to whatever advantage they seek.

Your students probably will have even more experience with the media than you do. So prepare yourself. Meet them where they are—and then guide them to where they need to be.