Dr Richard A. Bartle, Senior Lecturer and Visiting Professor of Computer Game Design at the University of Essex, UK is often quoted by, well pretty much anyone involved with gamification... And I'm just about to disagree with him. I just read Will Gamification be Ubiquitous in 5 Years? on Gametuned, and although I believe Dr. Bartle makes a few good points, he's missing some important new developments. Either that, or his and my definition of gamification just don't agree.
In the slides for his recent talk, Dr. Bartle seems to focus on the type of gamification that is often used by marketing departments to bribe people into behaviour they like to see (buying things or free advertising). This sort of gamification is not made by game designers and is driven mostly by extrinsic rewards. He explains quite correctly why this sort of gamification does not work in
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Monday, 16 May 2011
Friday, 13 May 2011
Sock it to me
 |
| My vintage sock puppets. |
To begin, you log in to the website using either the Facebook login button, or an off-Facebook login for younger players, and enter the factory. This game is not played in real time, which means you can play whenever you like, for as long as you like, and even replay your favourite missions. The main storyline is explored in the boss’, Mr. Barnsworth’s, office, with other themes, stories and missions available in
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Stop praising your kids!
Monday, 6 December 2010
Elitist education
Another rant on the subject of education.
It never ceases to amaze me that providing excellent education opportunities to those most academically talented - as in 'streaming by ability' - is so often described as elitist. And the term 'elitist' implies that somehow, certain others will be excluded and denied an equal opportunity.
In any other field, for example sports or arts, it goes without saying that people are streamed by ability. If those sectors were run along the same idealistic vein as education currently seems to be, the England football team would play roughly like the philosophers in the Monty Python sketch, and museums would be filled with random scribblings, while the Royal Ballet might resemble the X-factor auditions. Giving everybody 'equal access' to training and support in these disciplines would be ludicrous. Participants consider it normal and right that they should compete, train, and consistently be the best in order to get the top position. They learn to win and they learn to lose. They learn to have an accurate estimation of their own skills and abilities. Regardless of sometimes having to admit defeat, they learn real self-confidence and real self-worth, based on real achievements.
Consumers also expect the best. Nobody thinks it's elitist or exclusive to expect the England football players to be the best ones in the country. Most people would be insulted if they came to see a theatre performance, an exhibition, or a professional sports event, and were confronted with a mediocre effort by a bunch of self-confident amateurs who were never challenged and never faced rejection.
However, when it comes to education, the received wisdom is that challenging children is wrong. When faced with a difficult task, they might experience disappointment or even failure. It is seen to be of paramount importance that all levels of achievement are valued equally, so that all can have a pleasant experience and grow self-confidence. Without any challenges they are left with a hollow and meaningless sense of self-worth, based on no real effort or achievements, and they have a completely false view of their own abilities. That bubble will eventually burst and I doubt anyone will feel grateful for it. "I was not taught any skills while I had the chance, but at least I was a happy child living in cloud cuckoo land"? Not likely. The teachers we appreciate the most are the ones who made us sweat.
I wholeheartedly support the idea that all genuine effort should be valued equally, regardless of the resulting achievement. But this is in a moral and a social sense. Two children who both try their very best to complete a reading assignment, one with better results than the other, both deserve praise and recognition for their effort and hard work. In an academic sense, their achievement is different, and this too needs to be recognized.
A football match in a school P.E. class serves to allow all children to participate and will result in varying levels of achievement, but ideally equal levels of enjoyment and recognition. A professional team however will be comprised only of those who consistently achieve well. These talented players are picked up young and trained harder and longer than any other, by the best available coaches. They are selected and streamed by ability, and this is described as a noble thing, as realizing their potential, as an opportunity for children from all backgrounds, etc. It is rarely seen as unfair to those who are less good at football. It simply makes sense.
Ironically enough, all sense is abandoned when it comes to education. Should not academic achievement be handled in the same way? After several years of learning the basics, those that excel academically could be selected and streamed to be trained and challenged by the best teachers in the most difficult disciplines. Should not their potential be realized, should not this amazing opportunity be open to those with the talent for it? This does not imply that those whose talents lie elsewhere are not equally valued and recognized, any more that it is unfair that Wayne Rooney plays for England and I don't.
Universities are to academics like symphony orchestras are to musicians or national teams are to sports-people. Why can't we treat them that way?
It never ceases to amaze me that providing excellent education opportunities to those most academically talented - as in 'streaming by ability' - is so often described as elitist. And the term 'elitist' implies that somehow, certain others will be excluded and denied an equal opportunity.
In any other field, for example sports or arts, it goes without saying that people are streamed by ability. If those sectors were run along the same idealistic vein as education currently seems to be, the England football team would play roughly like the philosophers in the Monty Python sketch, and museums would be filled with random scribblings, while the Royal Ballet might resemble the X-factor auditions. Giving everybody 'equal access' to training and support in these disciplines would be ludicrous. Participants consider it normal and right that they should compete, train, and consistently be the best in order to get the top position. They learn to win and they learn to lose. They learn to have an accurate estimation of their own skills and abilities. Regardless of sometimes having to admit defeat, they learn real self-confidence and real self-worth, based on real achievements.
Consumers also expect the best. Nobody thinks it's elitist or exclusive to expect the England football players to be the best ones in the country. Most people would be insulted if they came to see a theatre performance, an exhibition, or a professional sports event, and were confronted with a mediocre effort by a bunch of self-confident amateurs who were never challenged and never faced rejection.
However, when it comes to education, the received wisdom is that challenging children is wrong. When faced with a difficult task, they might experience disappointment or even failure. It is seen to be of paramount importance that all levels of achievement are valued equally, so that all can have a pleasant experience and grow self-confidence. Without any challenges they are left with a hollow and meaningless sense of self-worth, based on no real effort or achievements, and they have a completely false view of their own abilities. That bubble will eventually burst and I doubt anyone will feel grateful for it. "I was not taught any skills while I had the chance, but at least I was a happy child living in cloud cuckoo land"? Not likely. The teachers we appreciate the most are the ones who made us sweat.
I wholeheartedly support the idea that all genuine effort should be valued equally, regardless of the resulting achievement. But this is in a moral and a social sense. Two children who both try their very best to complete a reading assignment, one with better results than the other, both deserve praise and recognition for their effort and hard work. In an academic sense, their achievement is different, and this too needs to be recognized.
A football match in a school P.E. class serves to allow all children to participate and will result in varying levels of achievement, but ideally equal levels of enjoyment and recognition. A professional team however will be comprised only of those who consistently achieve well. These talented players are picked up young and trained harder and longer than any other, by the best available coaches. They are selected and streamed by ability, and this is described as a noble thing, as realizing their potential, as an opportunity for children from all backgrounds, etc. It is rarely seen as unfair to those who are less good at football. It simply makes sense.
Ironically enough, all sense is abandoned when it comes to education. Should not academic achievement be handled in the same way? After several years of learning the basics, those that excel academically could be selected and streamed to be trained and challenged by the best teachers in the most difficult disciplines. Should not their potential be realized, should not this amazing opportunity be open to those with the talent for it? This does not imply that those whose talents lie elsewhere are not equally valued and recognized, any more that it is unfair that Wayne Rooney plays for England and I don't.
Universities are to academics like symphony orchestras are to musicians or national teams are to sports-people. Why can't we treat them that way?
Sunday, 21 November 2010
University tuition fees
I strongly believe that if there is one thing a government should never skimp on, it's education. I support a free education for all, up to and including university.
It is incomprehensible to me how education can be seen as a privilege, a boon, as if it is some sort of luxury item that some children are unfairly allowed to have while others languish without. Clearly, if that even were the case, the best solution would be to make it free to access for all who want it. But apparently it isn't fair that taxpayers should foot the bill for the education of children that are not their own, who will then, with their degrees, earn more than others.
I would argue that it is eminently fair. People with university degrees become our doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, teachers, journalists, politicians, HR personnel, PA's, museum directors, game designers,... There is not a single taxpayer in the country who will not, at at least one point in their life, enjoy the services of a person with an education. Why should not a small part of their taxes go towards making that education happen?
It also makes no difference whether the average graduate ends up becoming a higher earner in the future than the average taxpayer who paid for them to get their degree. No individual taxpayer is responsible for subsidising the education of any single graduate so it is unfair to compare the wages of specific individuals to highlight the huge 'disparity' in their incomes. Also, the graduate's earnings are situated in the realm of the potential. They might or might not earn more than someone else in the future. This cannot be accurately predicted. What we do know, is that while the average graduate is engaged in study, they are not earning any money at all and therefore by definition poorer than any taxpayer. It seems fair to me that at that point in time, those with money support those with none, as long as they are engaged in such a worthwhile endeavour as a higher education.
Our economy has ever more need of highly skilled employees and ever less use for the unskilled or low-skilled that could be turned out of education at 16 or even 18 years old. Cutting off subsidized education at that point discourages local young people from getting the skills they need to get work. Even if some degrees don't seem immediately useful, just having a large portion of the population highly educated is always good. Highly educated people are statistically healthier (less cost to NHS), less likely to commit crimes (less cost in justice), and more likely to be employed (less cost in benefits). They also earn more and therefore pay more income tax. Which, incidentally, can then be turned into more subsidy for the next generation of students.
Oddly enough, the UK government has recently raised the maximum tuition fee for one year in higher education to £9000. No matter, they say, it can be borrowed and paid back, so it should not stop the poor from participating. In fact, it will only need to be paid back if and when the graduate earns more than £20,000 a year. The interest rates will be favourable too. Except of course if you really earn a lot, because then your interest rates go up and up, well beyond market rates. (This helps to pay for all those whose loans are never repaid.) You can't even pay it back early to avoid paying interest, if you happen to have a windfall. The more you earn, the larger your debt becomes.
The clever ones will, if of a lazy disposition, give the whole thing a miss, because the monetary reward is no enticement. Why study hard for years to go into a demanding job if your take-home pay is just as low as if you hadn't? The clever and eager will take their excellent education and their degrees elsewhere and leave the debt behind. And it's all those clever people you really want to attract to higher education and have in your high-skilled professions.
It seems to me like there is no way you could make higher education less attractive and less accessible if you tried. In the short term, raising tuition fees may reduce government spending, but in the long term we can look forward to a country full of ignorant oafs.
It is incomprehensible to me how education can be seen as a privilege, a boon, as if it is some sort of luxury item that some children are unfairly allowed to have while others languish without. Clearly, if that even were the case, the best solution would be to make it free to access for all who want it. But apparently it isn't fair that taxpayers should foot the bill for the education of children that are not their own, who will then, with their degrees, earn more than others.
I would argue that it is eminently fair. People with university degrees become our doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, teachers, journalists, politicians, HR personnel, PA's, museum directors, game designers,... There is not a single taxpayer in the country who will not, at at least one point in their life, enjoy the services of a person with an education. Why should not a small part of their taxes go towards making that education happen?
It also makes no difference whether the average graduate ends up becoming a higher earner in the future than the average taxpayer who paid for them to get their degree. No individual taxpayer is responsible for subsidising the education of any single graduate so it is unfair to compare the wages of specific individuals to highlight the huge 'disparity' in their incomes. Also, the graduate's earnings are situated in the realm of the potential. They might or might not earn more than someone else in the future. This cannot be accurately predicted. What we do know, is that while the average graduate is engaged in study, they are not earning any money at all and therefore by definition poorer than any taxpayer. It seems fair to me that at that point in time, those with money support those with none, as long as they are engaged in such a worthwhile endeavour as a higher education.
Our economy has ever more need of highly skilled employees and ever less use for the unskilled or low-skilled that could be turned out of education at 16 or even 18 years old. Cutting off subsidized education at that point discourages local young people from getting the skills they need to get work. Even if some degrees don't seem immediately useful, just having a large portion of the population highly educated is always good. Highly educated people are statistically healthier (less cost to NHS), less likely to commit crimes (less cost in justice), and more likely to be employed (less cost in benefits). They also earn more and therefore pay more income tax. Which, incidentally, can then be turned into more subsidy for the next generation of students.
Oddly enough, the UK government has recently raised the maximum tuition fee for one year in higher education to £9000. No matter, they say, it can be borrowed and paid back, so it should not stop the poor from participating. In fact, it will only need to be paid back if and when the graduate earns more than £20,000 a year. The interest rates will be favourable too. Except of course if you really earn a lot, because then your interest rates go up and up, well beyond market rates. (This helps to pay for all those whose loans are never repaid.) You can't even pay it back early to avoid paying interest, if you happen to have a windfall. The more you earn, the larger your debt becomes.
The clever ones will, if of a lazy disposition, give the whole thing a miss, because the monetary reward is no enticement. Why study hard for years to go into a demanding job if your take-home pay is just as low as if you hadn't? The clever and eager will take their excellent education and their degrees elsewhere and leave the debt behind. And it's all those clever people you really want to attract to higher education and have in your high-skilled professions.
It seems to me like there is no way you could make higher education less attractive and less accessible if you tried. In the short term, raising tuition fees may reduce government spending, but in the long term we can look forward to a country full of ignorant oafs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)