Yes, which is why they are often positioned as such a good analogy for disciplinary learning - as Gee did in our very first cycle readings.

Sounds like the broad genre of "strategy" board games is really not your cup of tea!

Given your emphasis of this point, I'm reminded of the classic scene from an elementary school playground: kickball teams are being picked, with children yelling "me, me!"

What an important recognition. As a former public school teacher, I read this as a wonderful parallel to so much of what happens in schools today. If K-12 students could learn with their friends, in a less sterile (and often prison-like) environment than schools, they would likely have a more positive experience with disciplinary inquiry.

Wow... so many ways to "read" this situation - the removal of agency, infantilizing your presence and demonstration of skill... or was this welcome on your part? Or a bit of both...?

Interesting how a feature of the built environment has unintended consequences for the social relations among the group. Not insignificant, as you note!

As you become more of an insider, what types of shared social practices do these veteran group members share with newcomers? How are newcomers "enculturated" into this space? And in that process - even with a transitory membership - are there opportunities to either a) reinforce offensive behavior or b) promote more accepting social relations? In other words, what - if anything - is the social responsibility of veteran affinity space members to create a more tolerant and affirming environment?

Regardless, the offense of this sexist remark does nothing to create a more welcoming environment for all players. On the contrary, it likely reinforces a normative social environment that promotes - and certainly provides tacit consent - for this type of behavior. Silence is complicity.

Do you remember what the game was? Despite your assessment of the core mechanics influencing a negative desire to participate in this shared activity, it seems as though your overall feeling of comfort wasn't entirely about the game... but more a reflection of the social environment, yes?

Like Small World?!

And can you give us a small glimpse into his strategic thinking?

This is a nice connection that I wouldn't have immediately made - thanks for bringing together your recent play experience with this cycle's readings.

Fantastic! Wonderful to support a local game store. That's where I purchased Small World for our January shared play session.

There's been a theme recently with some of our blogging and play about the benefits of cooperative games. In our last shared play session, for example, Brian, Lisa, and I collectively attempted to diffuse some bombs through a collaborative - and cross-site/platform - experience. And Susan has also commented recently about the unique insights that arise through collaborative - rather than competitive - game play.

Any thoughts about why this might be the case?

It likely goes without saying... though the cross-platform strategy for engagement is really intentional, with these different modes of engagement providing both distinct yet complementary means of joining and contributing to this distributed affinity space.

Without a doubt there are benefits to accessing information and participating in conversations and communities anywhere and while "on the go." As a mobile learning researcher, I'm very much in favor of tools, practices, and platforms that help to extend learning across settings. That said, I do appreciate that Hypothesis use requires a computer - as such, it requires me to focus differently than I would if I were at the DMV or waiting at another appointment. Perhaps that's the case with you, too?

Wonderful - and as you do, please share either via this blog or Twitter so that we can follow along!

Thanks for including this reference to - and update about - your affinity space participation, that's great for us to learn.

Seconded!

Maintain this healthy skepticism! Transfer is a really tricky topic, and as our reading from Young et al demonstrated, the jury is definitely out.

Awesome, and what a large and contested literature! There's some rather interesting debate about the importance of MOOCs in education - student persistence, measure of learning, and the "gamification" of MOOCs. I'm eager to read your future posts.

This is a really important insight and I'm glad you've taken this away from the course. I'm especially appreciative of Susannah who has helped to advance this narrative around critiquing notions of "seriousness."

Isn't that interesting - the act of design may have been more meaningful than the benefit of implementation.

Yes, this is important to recognize and a real tension - thanks for bringing it up.

Annospate?

This is a great question!

I think about agency a lot, too. I have a forthcoming conclusion to a book that explicitly tackles educator agency. When it's published I'll be sure to share it with you!

Yes, it's important not to ignore aspects of metacognition just because a particular experience happens to be fun.

This is tremendous for me to learn, wow! What concepts? What aspects of learning? I'm pleased to know that you're feeling more like an expert, particularly with a community outside of our course.

I'm curious... and this is really important, thanks for noting this right up front.

And as you do so, I wonder if reaching out to someone like Scott Nicholson would be a valuable means of receiving feedback on initial design work...?

As I mentioned in response to your annotation to Susannah's reflection post (if I'm not mistaken), it's important to be a critical consumer of research. Yet that also means that playfulness may, in that context, take a bit of a backseat. That's an important tension for us to grapple with...

Thanks for sharing this, very important for me to read!

Nice! I need to think about this more... I've certainly appreciated the affordances of Hypothesis in building conversation and - to varying degrees - shared understanding. And yet, as you note, there's also value in breaking ideas... gotta chew on that, thanks for sharing.

Seems like the Bevelier et al reading really resonated! I know you put considerable effort into your facilitation responsibilities, that likely is informing some of these curiosities, yes?

Yes, my pessimistic self often sees a similar challenge. I have a forthcoming conclusion to a book about teachers as game designers, and I remark upon this challenge at length. When that conclusion is published I'll be sure to share.

And that's OK, at least you're committed and consistent!

About a third of our course has noted motivation as a key area of interest related to games and learning.

Would you like any recommendations? Sounds like a great plan and I certainly have a few favorites. I would also suggest that some scholars who focus on play - rather than explicitly games - may be useful, too. For example, are you familiar with Vivian Gussin Paley?

Interesting... so if I'm following this correctly:

• You're learning in our games course
• Your learning has influenced how you speak with colleagues
• These collegial conversations are then informing how you design and facilitate your own courses?

Or in computer science... or as a research scientist... or...

And did our use of open annotation with Hypothesis contribute to this learning at all? If so, I'd love to learn more!

Yes, particularly as those scaffolds fall away (as they should) leading to more independent and interest-driven learning.

Which is certainly one of the challenges in the world of Gamer Game - people have no design to be positive or considerate - so depressing and scary!

Nice, it's good to have a curation strategy.

Wow... I've either forgotten or didn't realize that was your first course. Amazing what's happened in a single year!

Yes, absolutely. It's not - necessarily - about the tools. And reading this, I'm reminded that this course would be ideally complemented by a second semester - a course that focuses on game design. It's taken three months for you to appreciate this insight. And that's fine, it takes time. And now with this insight, a grounding in learning theory and literature, and an appreciation for design possibilities, it would then be possible to launch another course about game design.

It's so nice to see you reading about some of my previous game-based learning projects.

Nice! I'd like to learn more about how the specific role of open web annotation helps you to carve these pathways. Because of our collective learning in this course, I've been thinking a lot about playgrids. Still not entirely sure what that even means right now... but it seems to capture what you're describing here - interest driven-pathways, etc. Again, I'd welcome the opportunity to learn more about specifically how annotation affords this type of learning...

Nice. That wasn't an explicit goal when choosing to use Hypothesis this semester, so I'm glad that's happened!

So in this respect, community engagement occurs primarily through access to information. This is a nice insight. Can you ever imagine a time when you might contribute that knowledge for others to access?

Nicely stated!

Sounds like life!

This is a HUGE area of research within the field of game-based learning. If you're interested in further reading about motivation do let me know I can share various resources.

I like this video a lot - I've returned to it on various occasions.

Again, something that seldom happened in my own experience with foreign language learning (specifically) and schooling more generally. I hope we're cultivating a slightly different learning environment in this course!

This is one reason why I didn't engage deeply with foreign language learning during middle and high school - something I now deeply regret.

I really like this side-by-side comparison, thanks for representing and sharing your reflection in this way!

Yup, that's a key motivation for this aspect of our course design.

Amongst many "take-aways" this semester, I'm pleased to learn this.

Nice recognition

If I read between the lines here, might I assume that it is because of your learning in this course that you're better able to reflect upon: a) how you designed those previous teaching experiences and b) how you understand the relationship among design, play, and learning?

This is a nice design rationale for game-based learning.

Indeed, I'm intrigued!

Which, as you certainly know, is an important aspect of game-based learning but not unique to game-based learning. One reason for our grounding in learning theory is the recognition that learning principles (such as those articulated by Gee) leading to particular types of designed experiences are possible beyond the realm of games and game-based learning.

Is this lesson/project for another course? If so, I'd like to learn more about how your learning in this course is informing your activity in another...

So vocabulary is the primary content-specific learning outcome of this experience, yes?

Learning what? I'm a bit confused... and given your critique below, sounds like you weren't impressed either.

I'm glad you're highlighting this. Often the design criteria can be glossed over in a rush to examine (and then "prove") some type of game play outcome.

I really appreciate how your scholarly critiques continue to investigate a very specific interest. I'm pleased that this basic course structure ("go read some research, and review it!") has provided you the opportunity to explore interest-driven learning.

Awesome, go for it!

And perhaps from your peers who have experienced similar dynamics in their own experience, unfortunately.

Glad that sharing that previous resource was relevant and a bit unsettling (in a good way!).

Yeah, I recall reading your previous blog posts and the surprise you expressed around these realizations.

That's really nice to learn - how playful language and approaches to writing inspires subsequent annotation.

Indeed, it was written by a good crew!

Ugh... that's really challenging for me to read, particularly because I designed and taught some of those previous courses. Whether that's the LMS, or me, or some combination... goodness, thanks for the wake up call!

Thanks! That's certainly the intention of his emergent design, and I appreciate that it's resonating with you. And - it should go without saying - thanks for helping to co-construct the experience by playing along!

If I'm understanding your reflection accurately, it seems as though this "deeper" understanding is some combination of our tool use (Hypothesis), the course content, and the type of learning community and our practices that we've created over the past few months... something like that? Something else?

Yes, this is really critical, too. And perhaps in a related instance, your external knowledge about libraries, information organization, curation, etc. is very relevant to the knowledge building and accessibility of information and interaction within the affinity space. Perhaps, as you've noted, an opportunity for various knowledge areas and practices to cross settings.

A key characteristic of knowledge building within affinity spaces.

Nice connection!

I wonder if you might suggest changes to community organizers based upon your experience? Do you know if others have experienced similar challenges?

We have ILT alum you are deeply connected to Twitch and know a lot about programming and engagement. Let me know if you'd like to be connected.

Learning and community engagement without playing, nice to read that is your current approach to participation.

Sounds like a good approach!

Interesting... as you know from our Gee & Hayes reading, status and established credibility can play a big role in affinity space interaction.

I wonder if/when/how this may become two- (or multi-) sided in the future...

Nice. As you know, that's a key reason why we're using Twitter in class - to prompt interest-driven connections with communities beyond our immediate course.

This is a really nice analysis, thanks for thinking through these important dynamics.

Of course I agree 100%. Hence the inclusion of various topics, authors, and debates in our graduate course.

I appreciate you naming your positionality, this is important for so many reasons!

Agreed, and I appreciate these critiques as they related to your specific participation in (what sounds like) a rather nascent community.

How much of an affinity space insider do you have to become before you can make these recommendations to others in the community?

Interesting... on the other hand, I appreciate that this space is organized around these various platforms (perhaps "settings") - the dedicated website, a Google Drive, and Facebook. Knitting together distributed platforms is key to many affinity spaces, even if disorganization is an unintended consequence. What are the specific affordances of each platform that have led community members to adopt and incorporate these into their group interactions? Would a centralized site/archive achieve the same purposes? Pros/cons?

Talk about abuse of power! Open annotation is most certainly an answer to the fact that those in power so seldom ask for - much less welcome - a diversity of perspectives and opinions. It is precisely because questions are so seldom asked by the powerful - "what do you think about..? how might we include you, and on your terms... ? does this decision represent the interests of many rather than a few...?" - that tools like Genius and Hypothesis are necessary.

Having read this piece, I'm not sure annotation - a set of practices, and in this context a social practice - is synonymous with "feedback."

Why is something loud a "most basic, human thing" rather than listening, analyzing ideas and circumstances, and synthesizing information? Babies, young children, and research scientists do both.

Lest we forgo the importance of nuance in writing, argumentation, and comprehension! Goodness, an educator or a scientist would surely bristle at this disregard for specificity. It's as if "feedback" and "criticism" are best delivered as superficial soundbites.

How frequently do we honor the rich ecosystems in which both students and educators are enmeshed? If learning is to be designed as relevant to students' everyday lives, then there most certainly is a need to teach and learn across multiple settings - school, community, civic, online, and peer culture settings.

This reminds me of someone's comment from last Tuesday's T&L meeting: "It's not about the technology!" Indeed, connected learning is not a how-to of best practices or a list of silver bullets. And note Peppler's emphasis here on making "education more relevant to today's youth" - this aligns very well with APS' CRE pillars/themes.

You'll recall that this is the website that we accessed during last Tuesday's T&L meeting when we examined the six connected learning focal cases.

If you start connecting the dots, you'll see some familiar faces here.

Recall our reading from Alex Games during Cycle 3.

I wish we did this at CU Denver!

And let's call a spade a spade: Dani is talking about herself!

In other words: "This is challenging work, we got our hands really dirty, and we're trying to make some sense of what we learned." I know I'm biased... and for many reasons, including the fact that Dani is a friend and colleague... yet I believe this approach to scholarship is very valuable.

I'm honestly not sure what this means, largely because I reject completely the idea that there exists a genre of "serious" games.

I would argue this depends entirely upon what is meant by a game-based course. A course that uses improvisational games in the theatre department likely doesn't cost TOO much... and isn't there an assumption here that game-based learning might mean digital video games? Perhaps that does cost a bit more money, but... it's an interesting point.

This is the research group at UW-Madison where me, Dani (this article), Seann (who we're also reading this cycle), Jim (who we'll read next cycle) all got our PhDs, and which was founded by Kurt Squire (who we've also read) and Constance Steinkuehler (whose work is cited throughout many of our readings).

This is where Jim Gee and Betty Hayes are professors.

To the concerns above about comparing across different courses, well, DBR doesn't aim to generailze, hence this kind of qualifying statement.

Sound familiar?

Note that my co-authors and I are wrestling with similar issues in our article "Gameful learning as a way of being."

I'm not sure I agree entirely with Seann here... I think there's great value in playing games together in class. Hence, in our course, shared play sessions. And when I've taught GBL courses entirely face-to-face, we begin every class session with a game.

Note the echoes of gamification from our previous cycle, and consider how the elements that Seann will be describing fit with the aspects of design and motivation that we previously discussed.

This is why we began with reading Gee - folks like me and Seann see his scholarship as foundational to this entire field.

So what does that say about game play strategy?

Are you referencing the article I co-authored with UM colleagues about gameful learning?

Aren't house rules awesome?!

As you know, this is interest-driven learning. There's certainly no requirement that you complete X challenges a day prior to our project concluding...

Sounds fun... is this a welcome practice? Something you look forward to doing?

One step at a time!

So perhaps you've chosen to stay in "lurker mode" because nothing has really motivated you yet... that is, until this flower design discussion. Maybe it's about purpose and context, and nothing to do with your fear of asking "a dumb question"...?

Another limitation of this study may be transfer. Because students only played Bone, are the encouraging results about listening, reading, and vocabulary only attribute to this specific game... and maybe not other OTS games?

This seems reasonable, no? The more intense a play experience, the harder it is to successfully participate in multiple practices (game play and note-taking), hence the notes are abandoned.

Were any of these words specific to the plot of Bone? In other words, how - if at all - did context matter?

Which means that this study by Chen and Yang is examining learning potential and outcome associated with an "Off-the-Shelf" (or OTS) game. In contrast to (digital/video) games that are expressly designed in alignment with certain learning objectives.

Oh goodness... I grew up reading Bone. This is, hands down, one of my favorite comics ever. Ever. I really like everything that Jeff Smith has done... and Bone, wow, I'm such a fan! I have a few original weekly comics (black and white), a few foreign language editions, some books, and a full set of the 90 trading cards that were printed in the early 90s. Great comic.

Wow... this is a fascinating story.

We had a nice Twitter conversation about that. If I recall correctly, we began to discuss to characteristics of skeletons and sharks, yes?

How odd...

Wow, what a really important interaction despite the obvious challenges and discomfort.

Fascinating insight.

Have you noticed this before NOT in the context of learning a new board game, or has this only happened within this affinity space?

Like many expressions of play, play can be socially negotiated from one moment to the next.

Fascinating, this creates the conditions for players to create rules of their own. What an interesting dynamic.

This is great. Play means making it up along the way!

This is a nice observation about activity in a community. The question, in some respects, asks "What's your expert knowledge?" And also, "How much of insider are you?"

And part of this might come through more direct interactions with people - that is, amplifying your participation and learning from/with others to get a sense of your various identities in the affinity space.

This is a very nice observation, thanks for sharing these reflective thoughts.

Nice to learn this as a result of your participation.

A nice reminder that there are many motivating factors that compel participation in an affinity space - that's a strength of a robust community.

Yes indeed, this is a very nice observation.

Notice the distributed ecology of resources - a website, podcasts, YouTube videos, all linked together by an affinity for game design.

Or perhaps, as some ethnographers would say, a participant observer?

Perhaps a future scholarly critique?

There has been a lot of literature written about simulations in medical education, I'm not surprised to learn this.

Yes, practices that can successfully cross settings are likely useful learning practices.

Yes, I appreciate that debriefing is a "tool," that's a nice reminder that tools are not only material objects.

Yes, game play is sometimes described as activity within a magic circle. In this respect, there is the world of game play and the world of not-game play. Creating a new margin, a hybrid space to connect these experiences is really important, and it appears that debriefing is one effective strategy for doing so.

That's a nice connection! And I'm also ofter reminded about her work, too!

This is an important distinction. Too frequently educators implement games in classroom or more formal learning settings without any regard for the conversations that will occur after/because of play. This emphasis on debriefing does serve an important need.

Good idea, as - practically speaking - you can use those in your final affinity space project.

And that's exactly why we're participating in this project over the entire semester - to develop, grow, and connect as a participant in a given community.

Nice question, seems to reference many of the conversations we've been having this term about the design of playful/game-based experiences in authentic learning contexts.

This is pretty amazing, thanks for sharing!

Any update?

That is so cool, I'm really pleased to learn that playing around with some coding to share information about your affinity space participation was so easy!

The concerns raised in this piece are necessary to air and debate. That said, what if this article had interviewed a high school student who was using open annotation tools to speak back against prescriptive school curricula, or interviewed community activists using annotation to protest prejudicial legislation (North Carolina!)? We can frame the same affordances of a given tool with varied narratives to promote our own agenda and set of concerns. As much as we should debate possible concerns, so too should we critique our own perspectives.

Hypothetically... as so much of the argument in this article is based upon conjecture... would Dawson (or any author, for that matter) prefer the blurred lines among annotating, questioning, invalidating, and silencing to be possible on Platform A but not Platform B? I certainly don't endorse those practices (i.e. invalidating, silencing), abuse is abuse and should not be tolerated wherever and however it appears. However, attempting to distinguish the acceptable platform/location/means of social interaction (no matter how terrible) seems rather tenuous.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Where? And not on Twitter? And not on Facebook?

And this can't happen through open annotation?

Whether with Genius' Web Annotator or Hypothesis, the idea that open web annotation is only: a) margin notes and b) sharing your thoughts (one-way communication, a response to some author) is just too limited. Maybe this is because I see various platforms though a pedagogical lens (among other perspectives).

Given that "agency" pretty confusing and contested (at least in academic discourse), I really appreciate the qualification of "vivid" agency. And I'm also curious about how such agency differs from other types of agency.

Perhaps yes, and that's one reason why Anita Sarkeesian (and others) are advancing their public critiques.

As noted in the video, the emphasis on accumulation is really important.

Yes, and perhaps also different disciplines

Great questions, and seems like a valuable professional learning opportunity for faculty. Maybe something you'd facilitate?

And as you note, also reflecting upon game play! Too frequently do educators forget to facilitate reflection following game play.

There's a nice parallel here to what some folks describe as active learning - certain activities in large courses will result in greater student learning outcomes in comparison to more passive learning (often via instructor lecturing).

Sounds similar to "team building" activities about privilege (or experience, or background) where participants progress (by stepping forward, or in some cases stepping back) based upon their responses to certain questions.

That's a nice control, and a unique way to use a game as an experimental intervention.

Great rationale presented here - connecting nicely to your affinity space study, your interests in adult learning and higher education, as well as your professional responsibilities. Well done.

My thanks to Jeremy Dean who provided wonderful feedback on some of my earlier writing about play and annotation. He suggested this distinction - (con)text - and this is my first attempt to take that idea and run with it a bit...

That's quite a lot of activity!

I'm curious, how do you understand a "noble fashion," and how did that quality of interaction contribute to you joining this affinity space?

so your learning "curve" (some might say trajectory) includes - navigating resources, setting up AW, and then orientation to AC. anything else?

Such as?

Yup, it does take a while, this all sounds familiar.

And why, in your opinion, are these cognitive training tools important and necessary?

and/or researchers who also design video games

A bit confused here... is this a reference to Bevelier and colleagues' 2012 article that we're reading in cycle 4?

this was their hypothesis, yes?

a nice connection to cycle 4 readings, and further evidence that Lumosity is pretty much bunk.

wouldn't this have been addressed somewhere in the research methods - how the researchers designed their study?

was that not specified?

Is this the research previously referenced?

do you have a reference for this research so that we might explore if we're curious?

Go it... i didn't know there was a Scooby-Doo expansion for Clue. Having watched the cartoon growing up, I likely would enjoy this "skin" of Clue.

So this was some type of expansion?

Nice summary. Our team - me, "The Jeffs," Michael, and another collaborator (Farrah) recently submitted a book chapter about our work a few summers ago with POOT in Oman. We designed and facilitated a special in-person three-day condensed trial for Omani high school students in Muscat. It was an amazing experience. The chapter discusses our "design principles for playful partnerships in game-based learning." It's under review right now, so we'll see what happens... but I'll happily share if interested.