Recently, part of what brought me to my current position was lost. The straight forward path to curriculum integration was offered up as a political sacrifice. My route to formal integration has now become longer and more convoluted. But there is still a path. And since I still have my job, I will continue to work toward the goal of formal curriculum integration of information literacy.

For the past few years of the college's general education revisions, information literacy was on par with writing and communication as skills valued across the new curriculum. This focus was written into the working documents and the structure of the new core programs. Courses were to be designated as "writing" "research" or "communication" intensive courses. Each representing valued skills for students across disciplines to learn. This was good structure that insured the emphasis on information literacy. While many would rightly argue (myself included) that many courses currently offered could be considered "research intensive," the benefit of parity was that information literacy was a formal objective that stood on its own in the curriculum.

When I started back in the summer of 2008 I met with the chair of the committee who was and I believe remains committed to the ideas of information literacy within the curriculum. I spent the spring of 2009 meeting with the committee and working with the Writing Center Director, who sat on the committee, to draft language for the "writing" and "research" intensive designations. Unfortunately, the WC director left in the summer of 2009. In the fall of `09, I again worked with the committee chair to finalize draft language for the "writing" "research" and "communication" intensive designations. This was the draft language that was moving forward in the committee.

During this academic year, the general education changes left the committee and went before the full faculty. As with any general education curriculum changes, everyone has something at stake. What proceeded were faculty meetings spent debating the larger structure of the new curriculum. This debate and suggested changes focused on the organization, naming, and focus of 4 or 5 "pillars." Writing, Research, and Communication were left relative untouched in the formal debates.

That is until recently. In between the discussion at division and full faculty meetings, the committee dropped the "research intensive" designation. When the curriculum structure came back up for discussion in the last faculty meeting, only "writing" and "communication" intensive courses were listed. After talking with the chair of the committee, it is clear that there was a need to trim the curriculum structure. And the "research intensive" designation became one of the first trimmed.

As the debate and concern over the expansion of the curriculum grew, it appears that information literacy was the easiest piece to remove. Without a department to speak up or faculty to vote, the library holds little political influence. With only the library director holding faculty status, we became a convenient sacrificial offering.

It is still my intention to continue advocating for the inclusion of information literacy into the writing and communication intensive courses. Now the lobbying effort and demonstrating the value has become a larger focus.

Below is part of the draft language on how information literacy was planned to be integrated into the curriculum. There was/is more to the document, but this provides a quick outline of what was planned. There were certainly concerns and areas that needed work in the text, but since this text is no under consideration, I would like to share it with others. Or at least preserve it in memoriam:

Research

All students at St. Norbert College must complete a minimum of four research-intensive (designated RI) courses according to these parameters:

* One of these RI courses must be outside of the student’s major;
* One of these RI courses must be in the student’s major and in the upper biennium;
* Students with double majors must complete an upper-biennium RI course in each major.
* Students may transfer one RI course in the lower biennium, but not both.
* Students may transfer one RI course in the upper biennium, but the second RI course must be in the student’s major so that transfer students must complete at least one RI course at SNC within the discipline.

In every Core Program, research-intensive, major, and minor course, students should devote energy to targeted stages of the research process—planning, searching, evaluating, revising, organizing, and documenting. The research products, in various forms, are the natural reflection of the research process.
LOWER COURSES

All RI Core Program courses will have a dimension, which includes research exercises, application of resources outside of course material, and a formal out-of-class research assignment. These research requirements must be described in the course syllabus.

Students at the lower core will be able to:

· Communicate a basic understanding of what information is needed
· Apply a variety of types and formats of sources to locate the information
· Identify gaps in the information and revise the search
· Describe and apply criteria for evaluating the information
· Combines new information with existing knowledge to construct individual analysis
· Communicate findings and conclusions to others through various methods
· Follow institutional policies to acknowledge where the information originated from

Students can meet these skills by:

Research Exercises

Courses should promote the concept of research and focus on the research process as a means to understanding course content. A traditional research based term paper is one of the exercises that meet the RI designation. Other possible research focused exercises include:

· annotated bibliography
· research journal/log
· research paper outline
· literature review
· author tracking review
· identifying major journals
· comparison of internet/database searches
· poster presentation
· oral presentation
· journal/book/article review
· research trend analysis

Application of Resources Outside Course Material

Exams should include at least one essay question that requires students to write a paragraph or more to demonstrate information literacy and critical thinking skills (e.g., incorporating external sources, evaluating ideas, explaining concepts, synthesizing material, arguing a thesis, etc.) Though instructors are urged to incorporate an essay component on every exam, they may modify this component to meet particular exam needs.

The idea of pacing within a game is not new and certainly not unique to one genre or another. Action, adventure, role-playing, and even puzzle games all require a consideration of pacing. How the player progresses, how the action moves, and how layers of challenge are added are all pacing concepts within game design. The idea of pacing in lesson planning and classroom instruction is not new either, pacing set by teachers, students, or combinations of both are all applied. Education literature has witnessed pendulum swings back and forth between rapid teacher-directed classroom pacing and student-directed variable pacing. Two separate math classrooms found different results in pacing. Sangster (2007) found a quicker paced classroom was beneficial. Vaughan (2005) found that students were more successful when they were able to set their own pacing of a unit before beginning.

Tomb Raider: Anniversary’s challenge in pacing stems its’ heritage and its’ isolated atmosphere. The game throws a large and seemingly open area to explore. The player can explore every gap, cave, and reachable outcropping trying to find artifacts, ammo, and other hidden items. Or the player can seek out the most direct and efficient route out of the room puzzle, progressing forward to the larger goal. This initially creates the feeling of a large area to explore, but quickly the player learns there is typically one, and only one, way to get past the puzzles. There are frequent dead ends for players exploring the area seeking out additional health, ammo, or “lost artifacts.”

The level design does give the player the ability to set their own pace, exploring the open areas for every item or seeking out the solution to the next area. Unfortunately, the level design often creates conflicting pacing. Those looking for the direct route end up exploring because the solution is not immediately clear. And those seeking out each item may stumble upon the exit only to have to return for missed exploration. Over the course of the first half of the game, I’ve experienced both situations.

I believe the game is designed with a slower, methodical pace. A pace that encourages exploration. A pace that reminds the player of how isolated the explorer/robber Lara is. And a pace that was born during an area of game design when there were not clear (or even often stated) objectives, tutorials were not common place, and the rise of game walkthroughs (and sites like gamefaqs.com) were only beginning.

The result of this perceived exploratory freedom is my frequent frustration about where to go and frequent restarts due to missed jumps. The ideas here of pacing tie directly into the directions (and lack of) given to the player. The game asks the player to explore the surroundings and enjoy the journey. While I enjoyed the journey in the first area, by the second area I was focused on the outcome rather than the journey's exploration. I was just trying to get to the next area and goal.

The recent Destrutoid rant on exploration and my classes this week shifted my experience and expectations with Tomb Raider's pacing. The Destrutoid rant talked about exploration in games as a means to either power up and add abilities or as simply as a means to explore and discover. The contrast of exploring to discover and exploring to achieve a goal are at odds with their pacing. When a player's goal is finishing the level or gaining the new ability a tighter, faster pacing keeps the game moving forward and the player engaged in progressing. When the goal is exploration the pacing can be more open and set by the player. These two paces echo Sangster (2007) and Vaughan (2005) from above. The challenge for Tomb Raider: Anniversary is meeting the players' expectation of pacing. When my goal shifted from enjoying the journey to reaching the next area and objective, I was at odds with the game.

Being at odds with the game's exploration pacing, paralleled one instruction experience this week. An undergraduate art history course was looking specifically for articles and resources on their paints and were struggling to find more than a few exact matches. Their goal was to get the required sources and move on to the next assignment and area of their work. The project required them to find tangential sources exploring themes and imagery. The students expectations of classroom pacing were not to search and expand their knowledge and understanding, they were searching to complete the assignment. This difference in research goals effected their expectations on exploration of resources.

In tightly focused research session, the student is able to quickly and efficiently find resources needed. Unfortunately, this can often be interpreted by students as doing a search and finding the closest articles within the first page or two of results. This is not a new concern or expectation by students. Librarians often struggle to help students dig deeper than the top results or to refine a search beyond the "good enough" articles. But when the exploration goal is a quickly paced task to the next assignment, their expectations are at odds with the frequent messy reality of a research journey.

We must also realize that our expectations can be at odds with the students as well. Just as I was frustrated with Tomb Raider slow exploratory pacing, our students get frustrated with libraries with vast resource options to explore. They just want clear directions through the assignment to reach their goal. Not every class can enjoy the journey as much as a Master's of Education class I worked with this week. After three hours of research exploration, and two reams of paper later, they were still enjoying the exploration of every resource and treasure hunt for each new piece of research.

That is the pacing and joy of exploration Tomb Raider: Anniversary expects of its' players. But I was the undergraduate student who just wanted to find my way out of this research cave and out into the daylight of the next assignment. This is a lesson in pacing and exploration that I can take with me into each classroom setting. While I can attempt to inspire the joys of exploration in students, I can also help them understand which path out of their research is the most effective. Just as Tomb Raider's series of jumps, climbs, and ledges may not always feel like the fastest way out of an area, it is often the most effective. In research, sometimes the required information is direct and accessing it is quickly paced. But there are other times when we can help students through the most effective path, which often includes jumps from one database and source to another.

But unlike Tomb Raider's isolated environment, we can help our students understand why this winding research path is important to achieving their desired goal. Unlike Tomb Raider, where the Sherpa died in the opening scene, the individual student is not alone on this exploration. Librarians are there to help pace the exploration, providing both a growing understanding of the journey as a process and effective routes through the deep caverns of research projects.




Cited:
Sangster, Margaret. 2007. "REFLECTING ON PACE." MT: Mathematics Teaching no. 204: 34-36.

Vaughan, Angela L. 2005. "The Self-Paced Student." Educational Leadership 62, no. 7: 69-73.

images from TombRaiders.net

After 6 months of no activity on this blog, the growing assumption is a slow quiet internet death.

But I'm hear to say that it is not the case. I'm not dead, yet. There are still people finding the site and emailing about posts, articles, and classroom ideas. In the words of my colleague, I was on a blogcation. There are plenty of others who took planned and unplanned leaves from their writing. And we all have reasons.

Mine... the sudden death of my father. He died a few days after my last post. I am thankful to have had an open relationship with my father and we never hesitated to say "I love you." That being said, rarely a day goes by that I do not think of him in some fashion or another. In addition to this emotional tramua, as the Spring Semester wore on, the entire library began the preparation for a moving our existing collection and staff to a new library building. All in all, I was not in a mental or physical mindset to write.

I did continue to research and present. And I am back to needing a place organize, share, and shape my thoughts and ideas. Thus, I am back writing again. Over the next few posts, I will catch things up and talk more about my renewed energy and focus for video games and information literacy.

Starting up with where I stopped 6 months ago is a good jumping off point. My post on the state of video games, learning, and academic libraries was responded to by Christy Sich over at Bibliographic Games. Christy had one of the earlier articles about video games and information literacy and her experience and insight are appreicated. She ended her post with:

It's important to imbed information literacy into the curriculum - so a game-based information literacy approach should also be embedded.

Our campus is in the process of revising it's general education requirements and information literacy is currently included at the same level with writing and speaking/communication across the curriculum. Working on a draft of information literacy objectives, outcomes, course requirements has taken time away from video game research, but it has also allowed me to begin looking for games that fit these outcomes. Over the course of this academic year, I will write more about how I'm incorporating games and gaming strategies into the structure information literacy objectives and hopefully curriculum.

But for now, I'll catch myself and anyone else up on the last few months. There are also some new projects that I will be writing about, researching, and reflecting on.

Hello again to anyone who hasn't updated their RSS feeds in a while. And hello to anyone new out there reading.




image from Pythonline

Library Voice's Chad added his thoughts about SRPGs and grinding. He's having a good and long experience (50 hours) with Disgaea, but his narrative progress has recently come to a halt. This has changed the game for him, but also opened up new gameplay elements for him, including the following:

However, once I got to Episode 11, I found that my Brawlers, Warriors, and Scouts (all traditional weapon wielders with swords, guns, and axes) would not cut it. As result, I’ve spent the last 5 hours in the game leveling up my new Mages and Clerics.

Now going back to the drawing board here might really frustrate some gamers, particularly after the amount of time invested in the game. Going back to a beginning level may seem pointlessly redundant, and I could easily become frustrated that I did not create the right characters in the first place. Some may find that leveling up can be a ridiculously boring process, since you simply play previous levels in order to strengthen the weaker characters. I initially thought I would feel the same, but I’m actually enjoying the process of level grinding. And believe me, it is a process...

...As such, I’m seeing and learning things about the game, and about myself as a player, a bit differently. In other words, I had gotten quite comfortable with how I was playing the game. The game shocked me out of my comfort zone at Episode 11, which caused me to stop, re-evlaulate, and play the game in a different way.

Chad's gaming experience translates well to a variety of learning situations, including research. His experience parallels that of an upper-division student I worked with earlier this week. She was very comfortable with the ins and out of EBSCO based databases, but moving her into more subject specialized databases opened up a new realm to explore and search skills to built. Obviously, some of the same skills and strategies still applied but new combinations of subject terms and other search strategies created a new and different experience for her.

In both cases, players and students relying on the familiar and understood skill set created a situation where they needed to expand their existing skills and knowledge base in order to progress. They were able to do a lot with a common set of tools (character classes & databases), but for true mastery and quality of gameplay they needed to add to that skills set- learn new techniques, practice them in a safer area to build them, and eventually apply them to the overall project.

Research can be a grind. But just as Chad has found satisfaction in the act of grinding and slowly advancing his characters, our students can derive the same sense of satisfaction. Granted, not all students are interested in a slow progression and quick results are sometimes needed. But framing a research project in the minds of gamers as a way of leveling up their work is a mindset worth discussing. Grinding research can be a rewarding experience, and one that doesn't need to take the 50+ hours players invest in video games.

Versions of Disgaea are available on the PS2, PS3 PSP, & DS.
Screenshots of the DS version are via RPG Fan

It’s been a week since I was standing in front of the GLLS 2008 attendees talking about videogames and learning.  While it was only about 15 minutes, it was a conversation that I built over the last two years.  In fact, most of my experience at GLLS 2008 was the summation of the last two years.  That culminating event really changed the tone of GLLS for me.  I mentioned during the “Gaming in Libraries” podcast from GLLS that the tone was different from the year before.  This year libraries are finding their stride.  Gaming in libraries is becoming part of library’s plate of services.

During GLLS 2007, everything felt fresh and exciting.  I felt that libraries and games were just peaking over the horizon and trying to stake a claim.  All the work that Jenny Levine did to put gaming and libraries out there, set the tone.  Henry Jenkins and James Paul Gee laid the groundwork for why gaming was culturally and academically valuable.  I know that I was naïve and wide-eyed in 2007, but in my conversations with people at last summer symposium there were many others just starting to seriously look at gaming.  I’m thankful for the many people in academic, school, and public libraries that were pushing gaming forward at that time.  And I’m thankful for everyone who’s joined in that effort over the last year and a half.

I had a chance at GLLS 2008 to talk about most of my projects: 

• -          Mapping videogames to information literacy standards
  
• -          Fantasy Football as information literacy practice
  
• -          Applying gaming strategies into classroom instruction
  

I also had the opportunity to help highlight the work that other librarians are doing in creating games for teaching information literacy.

I am very thankful for the conversations I had with a number of attendees around these ideas and I hope that the ideas helped spark interest or applications.   There is a lot of work to do with gaming in libraries, but based on the work that the attendees are actively planning and already doing there is a lot of good to come out of the work we are already doing. 

My mission and direction out of GLLS 2008 is much different than GLLS 2007.  In 2007, I left feeling charged and justified in the work I was doing.  People were interested and there was excitement around it.  That excitement paid off during last week’s symposium and I’m grateful for the opportunities I had.  Now coming out of 2008, I am again recharged but for a different mission. 

Applying gaming strategies into education is useful as a teaching strategy and I will continue to talk about ways to apply gaming strategies to teaching.  Mapping information literacy skills to commercial off–the-shelf (COTS) games is important to communicating the value of videogames in libraries and information literacy.  I will continue this effort, expand it to include additional games, and work to formalize it in order to create a guide for others. 

The work that Chris Harris and Brian Mayer are doing mapping board games to AASL Standards and NY State Standards is the model for the next step for my work mapping videogames.  Making the argument that COTS games teach and apply information literacy in the blogsphere was the only place I could start.  But I am hopeful that through a variety of partnerships those arguments can be carried out and applied elsewhere.

It’s taken me a couple of days to sift through all the emotions created at GLLS 2008, but I am eager to pick my gaming advocacy flag back up and help move it into the next battlefield.  While that analogy may be more militaristic than it needs to be, it fits.  This conversation over the curriculum applications of video games is already well underway in higher education and education in general.  Other libraries are already engaged in the conversation too.  I am hopeful that collectively we can integrate gaming in the curriculum.

I perceived a tone shift from the excitement and justification during GLLS 2007 to service and sustainability during GLLS 2008.  While this shift has challenged me personally, the shift is good for the long term.   This shift in tone can lead to a shift in application and ultimately integration.  Games are already being argued for and applied within education.  The more libraries join and support that conversation, the more exiting GLLS 2009 will be.

Today I had my first Info Lit class of my new job, and it was great to be back in front of students. My energy and job fulfillment come from my interaction with students and getting back teaching breathed life back into me after doing more librarian focused duties for the past few weeks.

I've wrestled with the label of "librarian" for a long time. Am I a librarian who teaches or a teacher who's a librarian? I've struggled with this concept over the last year, trying to determine what choosing one over the other meant for my career. And while there is a clear answer for me based on how I came where I am today, the answer may not be clear for others. But the question is, should it?

At LOEX of the West back in June, Lisa Hinchliffe and Merinda Kaye Hensley spoke about teacher self identity. They described how they were helping create and foster it both in Library Science grad students and in current library faculty. At the beginning of their session, they brought up the concept of "seeing yourself as a teacher, not just assigned teaching duties." This really hit home for me. I am accoustomed to seeing myself as a teacher and sometimes take it for granted that others do.













Off of Lisa's reccomendation during their presentation, I've started reading Parker Palmers' "The Courage to Teach" and read through Scott Walter's "Librarians as Teachers: A Qualitative Inquiry into Professional Identity" article out of College and Research Libraries Janurary issue.

The attendees at the LOEX of the West session brained stormed ideas about "what they wished we known." A partical list is below and it's a great start to reflection over the summer.

• How to "stand" like a teacher
• Creating learning outcomes
• Problems with routine/burnout
• Handling change as teachable moments
• Adapting to learning styles
• Teaching different levels and generations
• How to focus content
• Personal control over content
• Creating collaborations
• Classroom management
• Teaching strategies for engagement and active learning
• Respecting the students and their lives

Where do you fall with the issues? What questions do you have?
We can use the summer not only to get our libraries ready for students in the fall, but ourselves as well.

The ACRL IS section sponsored a session with Jeffrey Liles as the speaker at the ALA conference. Dr. Liles spoke about learning theory and how that can and should translate into the classroom. His theory to practice worksheet can be found on his website along with the conference presentation slides and a host of other resources. His education and learning assumptions (as shown in the slides) are great for any teacher to keep in mind. Some of them fit right into good gaming and good educational pedagogy:

• Less is more
• Student in control of their learning
• Learning is not linear

These assumptions and their connections to learning theory were are great reminder and grounding to start fresh in a new semester and a new classroom.

In my new position I'm spending a lot of time thinking about these teaching issues. I'm working on communicating these ideas and pedagogies to the librarians around me, while still valuing their experience and knowledge. Everyone has something to learn and something to teach. I look forward to experiencing both as a Teacher-Librarian.

Now since this blog focuses on videogames, information literacy, and gaming strategies for pedagogy, teaching philosophy discussions won't happen very often. And just to tie this post back to gaming, here's another example from Teach42's post on creative answers...

From a gamers vocabulary that is a correct answer: "pro" is the opposite of "noob." As teachers, we may never be pros. I'm fine with that. The continued learning and honing of skills is a good thing in the classroom and in any game. While our students may or may not be "noobs" they will grow in their skills as long as we don't consider ourselves too good of "pros" to stop learning and practicing.

Images from Steve Dembo at Teach42 post full of funny test answers from students

With the vs. mode discussion wrapping up for this week, I wanted to take a moment to offer suggestions on how to answer my own question. The round started with Chad's discussion of mastery or "good enough" in games. I replied with a detailed description of games as both "try and die" and "mastery through play" and responded to some of the questions from Library Voice. While the vs. mode supplement provided examples of both styles, it did not address the specific question:

What steps can we start taking now to foster this mentality?

I'm not naive enough to believe that changing the classroom setting and educational dynamic from "try & die" to "mastery through play" is a simple or straightforward process. I may not be naive, but I am a hopeful fighter. There are many pieces to creating this change, both on the front end (classroom) and the back end (educational system) that need to occur for lasting change. But I have faith. Last week's LOEX conference was full of examples of people working to help shift us closer to "mastery through play."

[any information on the LOEX presenters can found... here. The site will be updated with more handouts soon.]

Front End Changes:

• Meet students where they are. We should value our students' experience and use it. Not diminish it. William Weare, Valparaiso University, and Michelle Kowalsky, William Paterson University, spoke on this topic with their presentation "Library Instruction and Student Engagement in the Age of Google."
• 
  
• Engage our students in areas where they already have experience and use the worlds they know. Sara Holladay and I talked about this with our session on using fantasy sports as a bridge to the academic information literacy skills our students need.
• 
  
• Apply various learning styles to reach all players/students. Just as gaming uses a variety of methods to reach the audience, so should we. Merinda Kaye Hensley discussed and provided examples to reach a variety of learning styles in her excellent interactive session: "When the World Grows Smaller: Renewing Your Instruction Methods for International Students Using the Cephalonian Method."
• 
  
• Let the students play. We can lower the barriers to failure and create engaging and dynamic lessons applying gaming strategies.

Back End Changes:

• Assess the comments and attitudes of our students. What was/is their emotional pulse. Candice Benjes-Small and Eric Ackermann from Radford University spoke on assessing comments in their session "Creating An Architecture of Assessment: Using Benchmarks to Measure Library Instruction Progress and Success."
• 
  
• Evaluate our services after the assignments are due. We should be asking the question of if our "game guides" (instruction) was really useful. If not, do we need a better walkthrough guide? Here is the handout from Jeannie Callas' assessment presentation with some examples to help us get started.
• 
  
• We can treat assessment as an assembly process, not the final product. Assessment that is based on the "quest" rather than just the "final boss." This portfolio method of assessment is not new, but it takes the emphasis off of the "good enough" end product (boss battle) and turns it to the process/journey of a portfolio.
  
• 
  
• Librarians should advocate and work for inclusion on the "design team." Are you or is someone from the library on an assessment committee or organization on campus? Does the library have a place at the table? If we are part of the "games" design, then we are in a better longer term position to creating winning products... life long learners.

These are just a few of the many changes we can start to move our educational focus to mastery through play.

If not now, when?

If not you, who?

It's another week and while Library Voice and I are a little late to the table (finals week and all) we are back with another Vs. Mode. Chad starts off with a post on video games, mastery, and education. He raises questions about if games teach by repetition (die & try) or through practice (replay)? I'll first touch upon how games teach through each strategy and then move the discussion to what we can and should do about it.

“Try and Die”

As Chad talks about the try and die gameplay mechanic, “Typically, if you get beaten by a level boss, you have to fight him again and again until you defeat him. Once you get enough practice by getting beaten over and over again, you eventually (hopefully) develop enough skills or learn more about the boss to defeat him.” This is video games version of teaching to the test. Granted this is a gameplay mechanic originally applied due to the quarter eating economics of arcades, then to AI limitations, and eventually it simply became a video game tradition. There is most certainly skill here is the successful completion of a mission or a boss fight. But it is the same type of skill developed in schools to pass and perform well on skill and drill tests.

Gameplay teaches to the test be allowing players to practice a specific skill in the level that will be used against a boss battle. Anyone who’s played a Zelda game will understand the logic of, “If I just got bombs in this boss dungeon, then I must use bombs against the boss.” Now granted there is something to be said for the “just in time,” as Gee describes it, delivery of information that makes the information relevant and important to the user/gamer. But the method of gameplay, or teaching for that matter, that focuses on just passing the boss or the assignment is simply an extension of skill and drill educational practices. A class is passed, a mission is completed, period. Under this method the grade or the amount of health left doesn’t make a difference. One life bar or ten, the battle is over… move on.

Now I’m not the first to use gaming analogies to criticize some traditional educational methods. Others have done it before and done it better. I was rereading an article from Kurt Squire last week from Innovate (2005) and he leveled criticism at skill and drill assessment and traditional curriculum. What is important in this discussion is not the limitations of “teaching to the gameplay test” but how to get beyond it to the mastery level of skill.

Mastery through Play

Chad’s idea of mastery through play really boils down to “good enough” not being “good enough.” Game players may pass a level, but will they return to it again for a better rating/score or to unlock some additional material. While the player was “good enough” to move beyond the level there is often some incentive, either intrinsic or extrinsic, for them to come back. Chad’s question is about how we can create this incentive to come back and continue searching with our students.

Before we try to answer that question, let’s look a little bit more a some examples from games to gain a better understanding of what creates this incentive. Chad uses the example of Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror for the PSP (and ported to PS2). Dark Mirror uses both narrative and gameplay incentives to elicit mastery from players. Each level contains hidden folders that provide additional information about the larger story and conspiracy that occurs throughout the game. This is an embedded narrative device to motivate players to explore more even after they were “good enough” to pass the level. The gameplay incentive is tied to gaining a better rating or score for completing the level, similar to what Chad described.

[It is useful to know the distinction between these motivations because it speaks to games recognizing different learning styles. What connects with some players/learners will not connect with others, so building both styles into the gameplay creates an appeal to a larger audience. It may not immediately seem relevant to talk about video games teaching to different learning styles, but the consideration is there (but that is a discussion for another Vs. Mode).]

I’ve recently played Syphon Filter for the PSP as well, but I’ve been playing the online game Combat Ops. The online multiplayer version encourages mastery through play at the gameplay level. While a player may be good enough to help his team win a match, there is always room to improve. The improvement is encouraged as a player can play similar maps again and again against the same or different opponents. Even though I know I’m not even close to the mastery level in the game, I still continue to return, practice, and hopefully improve. Most online multiplayer games encourage mastery through play, since there is never a next level. Players continue to play matches with and against each other not for the story, but the gameplay. Multiplayer games add a social dimension to mastery, a player’s skills also increases their perceived valued in an online community.

Puzzle and racing games apply the concept of mastery through play as well. A player may pass an individual puzzle or track but there is always the incentive to come back for a higher score or faster time. Most non-story based games use mastery through play as a motivating concept to keep players coming back to the game. This week’s release of Boom Blox for the Nintendo Wii is a great example of this. As you can see from the gameplay trailer below, it is a puzzle game based around the basic idea of building up blocks and knocking them over. There are single player missions where good enough can get a player by. But the majority of the gameplay centers on getting a better rating/score for a level. Players return because the game is enjoyable and there is both an intrinsic and extrinsic desire to do better. The extrinsic reward is the better score or unlocking new content. But the intrinsic reward of having fun or a sense of accomplishment, will always be a more powerful reason to draw players back into games.

Now let’s look again at Chad’s question:

My question is this: 1) Does real learning occur in video games with these methods? 2) Can these teaching methods be replicated outside of the video game world? 3) Which method (if any) should educators and librarians employ when teaching our students? 4) Finally, can we do this without making it too dorky for our students?

1) Yes real learning does occur in both of these methods. But as discussed above, the “teaching to the test” mentality of Mastery of “try and die” is a short term skill. A player who’s barely passed a level once is not guaranteed to pass during another try, if they are not keeping their skill set up. “Mastery through practice” creates long term learning (of gameplay mechanics at least) through practice and continued use. This learning and retention of skill sets falls neatly into place with our experiences in educational environments.

2) The intrinsic and extrinsic motivation that the games mentioned above can be created in our classrooms. Teachers attempt to incorporate these various incentives and learning styles on a regular basis. The challenge is not only in creating these methods in the classroom but retaining them. For librarians how do we get past the “good enough” mentality of students searching for results and doing research? Creating experiences that get beyond “passing the level” is something we continue to struggle with. The hardest question is not if they can, it is how can they?

3) I sure hope that I’ve answered this question above… Mastery through play is a wonderful application when we can achieve it.

4) Ah, the “dorky” librarian question. I believe the answer to avoiding the “dorky” factor as Chad put it, is not to try to shoehorn our instruction into a game mentality. Yes, sometimes games are appropriate but not everything needs to be a game. A classroom setting can be just as engaging through gaming strategies and other teaching strategies without having to play a “game” with our students.

Creating a game sets a pretty high bar of expectations for students. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be trying and investing in projects and grants to create games. [Those are important and should continue] But it does mean it is not the only path. We can and should be using video games and gaming strategies to inform our teaching, not just simply to do our teaching.

So Chad if we agree that “mastery through play” is an ideal application of helping students move past the “good enough” mentality of the first 3 results in Google or the first page in EBSCO – how do we create it?

What steps can we start taking now to foster this mentality?

Can we ever foster it?

I’m already starting a response to my own question… I believe the answer lies in a combination of new gaming strategies and traditional education pedagogy. How about you?

Yesterday I wrote about four semester's worth of a review activity using video game strategies. Since I've finally finished up some edits and corrections to my ACRL Gaming & Academic Libraries chapter, I wanted to share part of the chapter discussing this activity. I've had a few questions about the basics of the activity - hopefully this is useful.

The lesson applied the gaming strategies of encouraging inquiry, open-ended exploration, context bridging, scaffolding, and personalization. The students in the course were grouped and given a research question that asked them to find a source within a given format (book, article, website; print or online). The goals worked to motivate the groups and kept them working toward the objective. The students quickly ran through the search process to reach the goal, a logical action within the context of games. Given the specific goal, the students worked to reach that goal in order to complete the challenge as quickly as possible. The challenge the librarians faced was to ask questions of the students and expose their search process more. The video game strategies were effective for engaging the students in discussions about why they took the search path they did. The librarians used a rubric to assess the students’ discussion of how they reached their research source. When asked, the students explained the search choices they made and provided examples that met the rubric.

The lesson incorporated gaming strategies to provide an open-ended exercise and allowed students to explore and find their own way. The students were initially challenged by how to get started with this open-ended lesson. The initial session did not clearly define the learning goals, and because of the large degree of personal exploration the lesson encouraged, the students struggled to get started in the activity. The successive attempts at the lesson provided the students with a framework for the activity. By foreshadowing the lesson a little more, each group was much more willing to dive into the activity, explore the search, and complete the goal. The initial setup of some framework not only allowed the students the confidence to jump in and get started but also created more buy-in and motivation for the overall activity.

This week marked the fourth semester that the information literacy team at the University of Dubuque applied video game strategies into a resource review activity. The activity was originally designed in the spring semester of 2006 as a way to address student fatigue late in a semester. The following semester, we added video game strategies which included: personalization and open-ended/nonlinear navigation.

Over the four semesters, we modified the activity to make the goals more clear and change when we conduct the activity during a semester. At first we used the review at the end of a semester, but based on student feedback we moved the activity to the middle of the semester. It now serves as a review after the set of information literacy instruction. It works very well as a review and occasionally an introduction for some students who didn’t use certain types of sources previously. We’ve received a variety of verbal and written feedback over the semesters. Most students provided positive feedback including:

“I thought the activity was useful, however, it seemed to be a big review… But reviews are always helpful–it made me feel like I knew what I was doing and I feel really confident in my research skills.”

And some constructive negative feedback as well:

“It was a fun activity but we did already know how to find research since we had already done two papers.”

The biggest challenge the activity has faced has not been if the students do well, or the gaming strategies successfully engage students. The biggest challenge has come internally from the librarians resisting the urge to over-structure the activity. In an effort to make the goals clearer for the students, we have struggled against a traditional desire to define the entire process and path of the assignment. The temptation is understandable given traditional instruction that clearly lays out the steps and the process for the students. While the librarians agree with the application of video game strategies, it can be challenging to keep the activity open. Being willing to accept and discuss whatever results the students arrive at, even if they go against what we just taught them, are an important.

When I first used this lesson, I was impressed with the variety paths students used to get to the same sources. The activity can teach both students and librarians a lot, if we allow to the students to choose and trust that regardless of the path and the results there is something to learn.

Earlier this week, I talked about my previous experience and my reflections from this current semester with the student led, multiple path, resource review. Today a colleague of mine, Anne Marie Gruber, taught the same lesson to another class. This is what she had to say about how the information literacy session went:

The Library Dusk lesson was very effective as a model for a student-led review of research strategies. While it is set up as a review of various resources, one student even commented to me, "Wow. I learned a lot today." Even in this 300-level class, several students had never used ILL before, or didn't know what to do when full-text wasn't available.

The "choose your path" pedagogy was very effective. Letting students lead helped them take ownership and stay engaged. While their votes are anonymous, they were willing to defend their choices, leading to great discussion about resource choice. Following the resource review, students made effective use of their work time. They all found some great articles and effectively used the variety of sources we had discussed.

I enjoyed the session as much as the students did, and it was gratifying to see them succeed because of Paul's well-crafted lesson.

Anne Marie is an amazing and dedicated librarian always looking for ways to further engage and help our students learn. I am fortunate to work with her.

For those interested, an asking, here is the link to the powerpoint slideshow of Library Dusk. Any feedback or questions are welcomed.

As I posted last night, I taught the Library Dusk database review today. The information literacy session went okay, but it was a powerful example of the gaming strategy of "reducing the risk of failure." I've written in some detail before about applying "risk taking" video game strategy, and I'm thankful for that perspective today.

The session started well. The student-directed multiple path review got the class of upper class students engaged. While all but one of the students had previous information literacy sessions with me, the vast majority were interested in student-choice driven review. The activity worked well to review both catalog and database navigation. It was effective in challenging students' previous assumptions. The activity includes choices of specific databases, books, and internet sources. Students first started by choosing internet search engines as the place to start. Given the scholarly requirements of the assignment, starting with the internet would not be the most efficient. I asked a few detailed questions about the type of sources they would find online and they came to the conclusion that their could be better options.

Students were surprised that their assumptions about what search terms would bring the best results were incorrect. Breaking their assumptions, opened up some discussion about what they expected to happen and what their rationale was for the choices. Similar to last year's session, the students engaged with each other and challenged each others' opinions. I served more to help guide the discussion and not to present the content. The personalization the students had with the ability to determine the how, where, and what should be searched, kept them engaged and debating during the course of the review.

Unfortunately, not everything was that rosy. Some hyper links that I tested before the class did not work and my power point slides from MS Powerpoint froze up about half way through. I was lucky that the class covered much main review topics.

Keeping in mind the video game strategy of "reduced risk," I looked back on today as an example of flexibility, not frustration. Having a review specifically designed for Power Point created tension for me once it froze. But because I'm trying to model video game strategies, I was able to use that turn of events for the better.

Every instruction librarian has a bad session and days we wish we could "do over." By keeping the gaming strategy in mind, we can have "do overs." While the same class can never come back, there are more opportunities. Another class - another chance.

Video games reduce risk so that the player continues to play.
Librarians and teachers want to reduce risk for our students so they continue to be engaged.
We need to reduce the risk for ourselves so that we can continue to innovate, try, and advance us all.

Last year I created a multiple path database review based on video game strategies. And now, I'm teaching the same class tomorrow. I've spent tonight updating (and fixing a few slides) from last year slides. I'll post about how the class went tomorrow, but until then here is a brief summary of the lesson, experience, and student feedback from last year.

After successful open-ended information literacy sessions applying videogame strategies, the librarians at the University of Dubuque used a student- response system and Power Point to create a multiple path, point & click review for an upper division Communication course. The initial design comprised over 70 slides and resulted in a multiple-path review where the students voted to determine the direction of the research process. The assignment objective was to find two sources from books, articles, or the internet. Every path and choice was hyper linked within the Power Point slides so that any decision the students made was linked to the corresponding choices. Students stayed engaged in voting, reacting to the results, and discussing the choices. Much of the class discussion was peer led and the students engaged each other and debated about what path to choose. A short evaluation with open-ended questions was sent to students one week after the information literacy session. Students’ responses were overwhelmingly positive and included, “I did like how you gave us an option for going our own paths” and “I thought the voting was great.” One student commented that, “It was a lot more fun being able to first handily interact with the research.”

During the fall of 2007, Ohio State University implemented a new library orientation game for incoming students. The game was developed as a new way to introduce new students to the variety of services and materials offered by the many libraries at OSU. The design team consisted of Fred Roecker, Nancy O'Halon, Karen Diaz, Tingting Lu, and Jim Muir. The game is an interesting way to reach out to a large number students and provide students with a reason / goal to keep exploring the different library sites. Fred Roecker described the game as:

The goal of the game is to discover the location of the head of Brutus Buckeye (the OSU mascot). There are five short films and eight casual games to give players an overview of our library facilities, resources, procedures, and people. Successful completion of a game awards the player with one clue letter. Collect them all and unscramble these letters to reveal the library location of Brutus' head. There is a comment form for players to give their impressions of the game as well.

The game uses a map of the OSU campus along with Google Maps to provide the game board for players to navigate around the campus. Clicking on each library location will either bring up a short video or a simple minigame both of which provide more detail on the library shown on the map. The games include call number matching, multiple choice questions about library services, matching databases to their content, crossword puzzles, and others. One game requires students to click on a screenshot of the OSU libraries webpage to answer different questions. The game provides an interactive tour of the Library's webpage and services available through it. Upon completion of each minigame the student is given a letter that helps unlock where the mascot's head is hidden.

During an mail conversation from October 2007, Fred Roecker discussed the progress of the game and student use:

The Head Hunt library orientation game has gone very well. We placed teaser flyers in all freshmen packets which were distributed during their on-campus orientations during the summer. In September, each student received an email notification about the game, a listing of the prizes in the drawing for those who successfully complete the game, and the URL to begin playing.

There was a follow up reminder email as well as a note sent to the families of the new students inviting them to play along with their students to learn about the
libraries. We also contacted all the dorm Resident Advisors to let
them publicize the game in their dorms since we have a new graph that
displays numbers of students playing the game by dorm and also by
college.

As of mid-October, they had around 800 students play the game and about 100 guests. After mid-October and the window of new student orientation passed, the librarians administered a "Student Perceptions" survey to about 1,000 students. This survey focused on how and if students are using the libraries and their resources. Since the library had data on which students played the game, they are planning to analyze the surveys to see difference in those who had and had not played. Also since the same survey was given in 2006, the librarians planned to compare the results this year to the previous one.

Before the classes ended in December, I had a follow-up conversation with Fred where he had this to say on the student feedback:

The first quarter freshmen student players gave us very positive feedback on the experience and the information they found in the game. A drawing for prizes was used as an incentive. Information about the development of the game can be found in the "About Head Hunt" link on the opening screen.

I encourage everyone to go and try out OSU's Head Hunt. The game may not actively engage them like "I'll Get It," but it does introduce a lot of library content in a more active way than OSU had traditionally done. The games are not a deep, meaningful experience, but they were not designed to be. The larger narrative of finding the "head" gives students a reason to continue playing and the games offer enough variety to keep students wanting to see what game comes next.

Head Hunt works for what it is - a creative and engaging interactive tour of the OSU libraries and services.