Homo Numericus Bis
1.5K views | +0 today
Homo Numericus Bis
humanités numériques
Curated by Mlik Sahib
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Mlik Sahib from Education and Cultural Change

Forget Gold Coins and Badges: The Real Value of Video Games for Learning

Forget Gold Coins and Badges: The Real Value of Video Games for Learning | Homo Numericus Bis | Scoop.it
"Game-based learning is not gamification!" exclaims Jordan Shapiro, author of FREEPLAY: A Video Game Guide to Maximum Euphoric Bliss. "We don't need gamification if gamification is about competition and commodification of learning," Shapiro says in this talk at the Global Education And Skills Forum in Dubai. But what it can do is introduce systems thinking in a way that allows kids to want to solve problems and master new systems, even if they don't know the first thing about it -- yet.

Via Peter Shanks, Pierre Levy
Peter Shanks's curator insight, March 25, 2014 7:36 AM

Video games teach critical thinking, problem solving skills, and perseverance while building metacognitive skills. Game-based learning can provide systematic, data driven teaching in a way that forces creative problem solving rather than rote memorization. And video games can do that in a way that is replicable, scalable, and increasingly affordable

Rescooped by Mlik Sahib from Humanities and their Algorithmic Revolution

Editors’ Choice: Digital Humanities as Gamified Scholarship | Digital Humanities Now

Editors’ Choice: Digital Humanities as Gamified Scholarship | Digital Humanities Now | Homo Numericus Bis | Scoop.it

Via sandra alvaro, Pierre Levy
Mlik Sahib's insight:

«A game must offer meaningful experiences to engage its players, particularly problem solving. For scholarship, that means asking and trying to answer meaningful questions. Here is where there is considerable debate in the Digital Humanities community as to how much these questions have to relate to the traditional questions of the Humanities? Personally, I do not feel prescriptive on this issue. An important part of the game experience is making choices and finding out what happens. I would like to leave this space as wide open as possible. Initially, we needn’t think of our playful experiments as providing any necessary insight into our “real world” scholarship, nor should we let that scholarship impose strict constraints on our play. That defeats the purpose of the game. We are not building Camelot—only a model.

Gamification can suggest a number of strategies for demonstrating the relationship between our play and our scholarly endeavours. Performing at different levels (“levelling up”) and receiving badges—perhaps representing confidence in the statistical validity of our results, and the like—would be typical methods. Just as (ideally) workers create real innovations and businesses provide real-world rewards for progress in the games, so scholars might progress along a similar continuum of activity. But I am sceptical of these strategies (at least, in this relatively undeveloped account) because they inevitably privilege the reward over the process and diminish interest in the intervening steps. I also suspect that many digital humanists would now go further and suggest that those steps are essentially performative and need not be seen in teleological terms (that is, as a means to some higher scholarly end). Incorporating “play” in scholarship eventually blurs the boundaries between analysis, interpretation, and creativity. That is appealing to some, deeply disturbing to others. As of now, I find myself on the fence, wishing to think more deeply about how to negotiate the status of objects I produce through “scholarly play”.»

No comment yet.