I found out on Thursday that my presentation proposal for the state academic library conference got approved. I also got another proposal approved that a fellow instruction librarian from work and I put together. I'm excited for both. Of the 12 presentations at the conference, I'll be leading 2.

With that in mind, I'll be keeping the ACRLog post in mind... Higher Expectations For Presentations

Steven sites a good post by Dave Paradi and both discuss issue that I'll factor in as I'm preparing my presentations.

On a related professional development note, I'll be getting a review copy of Jenny's "Gaming in Libraries" report. I love Jenny's work, but I'm also excited that I was contacted to get a review copy... I'm excited someone out there is reading this.

Paul

I meant to get this post out late last night, but I was up past 1:00 with a sick baby. Tis the season for snow, lots of family, spreading joy and germs. Anyhow, I trying out a new story idea by posting some of the video game news stories I'm reading. I'm still using the "What I'm Reading" column on the top of the blog to highlight what I'm reading, but since there's starting to be more traffic on this site (from none to minuscule) those of us using RSS feeds may never get those. So here's my gaming wrap up for the past couple of days. The column will still feature other articles that relate to gaming and education/instruction.

These are a few bigger topics that while not directly related education or libraries but are significant and potentially useful.

Teaching Thinking Skills Through Game Authoring
Serious Games always does a nice job covering educational issues.

The Designer's Notebook: PS3 versus Wii
Here's a nice comparison, from a designer's perspective of both the PS3 and the Wii. One reality that seems to pop up in article after article is that because of the cost of development for each console (tens of millions for PS3 vs. hundreds of thousands for the Wii) developers can take more chances on Wii games since it will be easier to recoup the costs of development. This means more creative original games that take chances.

Brief History of Game Console TV Ads
An interesting feature from PC World magazine that shows the changes in how video games are portrayed over the years.

Video Game Media Watch's Review of Time Magazine's PS3 Coverage
Video Game Media Watch is a good watchdog blog on video game journalism.

West Virgina University Studies WV Schools Use of DDR in Gym Class
Game developer Konami partnered with WV to introduce DDR in gym classes... here's the first studies to see how effective it's been.

Gamasutra's Quantum Leap Awards
It's the end of the year and lots of gaming sites have "Best of" awards out now and most are worth checking out. Gamasutra's awards are nice since they are about advances in the industry. Enjoy.

"How did you do that?" "How did you get there?"

Two questions I've heard many times by students, either in an instruction session or at reference interaction. I usually chalk these comments up to us not presenting the material well or the student just not paying attention. But after my experience yesterday trying to turn our library staff into DS fans, I realized that part of the equation, part of their response, is a lack of context.

After watching one technically endowed co-worker stumble through the menus in a game and put the student's reaction in context. The navigation and logic of using the game and playing were foreign. And it took some trial and error in order to feel more comfortable and to start understanding. I know I'm guilty of diving into a database (I try not to over explain too often) and I've seen others start off with basic assumptions as well. What if the students do not have the context to for those basic assumptions?

I assumed the navigation of the game was straightforward, it was for me. I even had another co-worker state he got stuck trying to enter a door (in New Super Mario Bros.). I assume - enter a door in a 2D space, press "up." But I've done that since the 5th grade. Some librarians have been searching and constructing search strategies just as long. Even those new librarians still can enter with certain basic assumptions. If a librarian can get stuck in navigating an electronic interface (in the game) why can't a student (in the database)?

What can we do?

I'm going to take some time before the spring semester starts and look back at how I present the various interfaces to first year students and try to determine what assumptions I project. Now here's the tricky part - don't solve the problem by explaining the assumptions. It's nature, I want to. I would give them an overview of the interface, but in no more than 2 sentences. Then using game strategies, I want to let students explore, discover their barriers and work together to try to overcome them.

I want to give the students some quick time (2-3 minutes) to dive in and explore on their own. Then pull then back and use examples from their results, problems, and successes to have them teach each other (with my additions of content, explanation and analysis). They are going to hit challenges, just like the staff did with the interface, but the class can help them work through it. Granted I'll want to add in content to help the students with quality and evaluation and other IL skills. But navigation is different. Navigation needs context... or a willingness to explore and discover boundaries.

I think that having the librarians struggle to navigate through the game was a good & uncomfortable experience. If you have non-gaming librarians and staff, force it on them. Have them work through those few moments of awkwardness. Then let's all remember that during our next instruction session.

Nothing like walking a mile in their shoes. Or playing a level with their controller.

I spent this day in expectation, waiting to see if Game|Life or Joystiq would pick up and blog about my survey. Kyle Orland, of Joystiq, sent me an email around noon. He was ready to post about it, but I had forgotten to open the survey. I closed it late last night in order to tweak a few questions, but forgot to open it back up. Kyle said he was willing and so I spent the afternoon following up with Kyle providing some more information. So I'm hopeful that Kyle will blog about it tomorrow.

So while I was following up with Kyle, I was spreading my Nintendo DS love around the library staff. I "forced" the DS and a few games to some of the librarians and staff at my library. It's a slow time of the year and a good time to let others play. I introduce my nongaming co-workers to accessible games like Elite Beat Agents and Brain Age. Elite Beat Agents was met with enjoyment, while the idea of Brain Age was more exciting for the staff than the actual game. Elite Beat Agents is a fun and light rhythm game that is easy for anyone to pick up, Brain Age is interesting and stimulating but can be frustrating during the initial attempts...

"easy for anyone to pick up"
"frustrating during the initial attempts"

I've heard these exact words used to describe internet search engines and library databases. Switching places is an important piece. The library that gets frustrated with the game interface, but can quickly navigate a research database and a student frustrated with a database interface - are they that different? If we realize that not everything is as intuitive as it is for us, we've made a good first step toward creating more accessible instruction sessions.

Here is the link to the final draft of my video game / education success survey.
Click here to take the survey now.

Please take a look at it and let me know what you think. I have a hypothesis that how players react to challenges in games corresponds to how they relate to challenges in homework. I want to know what they do and what help they seek. This draft hopefully clears up some of the questions and adds a Likert scale for how helpful each group is. Survey directed at high school and college age students and hope to see what correlations exist and then begin to explore what that means for reference and instruction. I'm hoping to find ways to move reference help away from the stigma of a "game cheat" when a player is stuck and closer to the tutorial first level that prepares each player for the challenges of the game.

My next step is to contact two of the major video game blogs and see if they will pick up and post my survey. I'm going to contact Kyle over at Joystiq and Chris at Wired's Game|Life to see if they will help. I've capped the initial responds at 2500 (mainly due to the $) and I'm optimistic that with a blog post from them I can get it.

If you have feedback, let me know... otherwise stick around and let's see what happens.

"Time, it's on my side, yes it is"

I wish those song lyrics rang true. Time was the theme running through my head this past weekend. Time as a parent, a husband, a professional, a researcher, and a gamer. The approaching holidays and looming vacation means that I'm trying to clear up items before leaving... although since I've been reading a handful of articles I'll be posting some literature reviews over the coming days. But before then, I need to find time to get my survey out. All of these things add up to realizing (again) that I don't have the time I want.

Since 2001, during my first Master's program, I promised myself that I'd buy a new video game console once I finished the program and my thesis. That came and went and I had a new baby ($) and knew I was going to start the MILS program soon. Thus, I told myself the time would come at the end of this degree program. That time is here, and as much as I can rationalize getting a console I just can't find the time. Heck, I'm still trying to keep up on a regular basis here. But it's Christmas time, so anything can happen.

Thinking of time got me thinking about the time our students have. Not only is good research a matter of practice and motivation, it's also a matter of time. Our students may know the best path to take, and may even want to take it (if that happens we are doing something right), but may just not have the time to take it. They take the efficient path to "decent" sources since they have deadlines and the research paper/project is only one of the many assignments they have.

I love a good adventure/rpg game, but don't always have time to complete every side quest. I always start out with the best intentions, but usually somewhere along the something happens... my interest wanes, other demands pop up, or I just want to push through the main goal. I think most of our students are not that different.

So how do we combat the issue of "time" with our students? We can't expect them to research as deeply as we would, heck we don't always have time for that. But we can help them make the most of the time that they do have. If we can help them learn quality search strategies, evaluation skills, and other information literacy skills during our limited time with them... they have the tools. Even though I know I struggle with moving beyond the "saying" to the "sinking" with students, so that the content actually sinks in and stays with them. I think if we can help them reach beyond the "good enough" model, even just a little, with their limited time we are doing well.

Now there's a whole different debate over the "right" way and "good enough." And while I understand the academic desire to do the "right" or "best" way, I'm too much a realistic and too practical to hope for that. I may want to take every side quest in a game, and sure they provide better items and make my character stronger... but I do not need them to complete the quest. If our students take a few side quests each time, by the end of their time with us they've taken the "right" paths. They may never have the time to any much more than that, but is that so bad?

Here's the stats:
2 Master's Degrees -
Master's of Arts in Teaching & Master's of Information & Library Science

2 Children -
Carter, 3 (currently in trouble for eating part of a book) &
Anderson, 1.5 (currently in trouble for covering himself in a tube of lipstick)

2 kids and 2 master's degrees all before the ripe old age of 30.

Congrats to me... I finished my final class tonight.
So stick around and join the discussion.

Here is the conference proposal that I submitted last week for our state ACRL chapter. I'll hear back next week if I got accepted or not, but it's a place to start. I've also submitted a poster presentation proposal for LOEX which is more focused than this, but still contains the general idea. Any thoughts or feedback is welcome on this. Thanks

****

Video games do teach. The challenging question is not if they teach, but how. Gee (2003), Prensky (2006) Shaffer (2006), Van Eck (2006) and many others are part of a growing body of research devoted to answering how video games teach. In the fall of 2006, The Federation of American Scientists released a report identifying the educational aspects of video games and called for increased integration into the classroom.

This presentation analyzes commonly identified educational features of video games and how they apply to information literacy. These educational features correlate well with traditional pedagogy and map to academic standards. Regardless of if the students are gamers or not, gaming strategies are rooted in educational theory and can create a new classroom experience.

But how do can these strategies be implemented into our classrooms? The presentation looks at how a variety of libraries are integrating games, from simple quizzes to more complicated flash based exploration games and even first person 3-D research quests. These engaging efforts are exciting, but can be intimidating. The University of Dubuque’s small steps into game strategies provide a successful example for other libraries looking to get started.

The goal of the University of Dubuque’s program was to integrate the educational benefits of games into existing courses. The presentation describes how the instruction program mapped game strategies to ACRL outcomes, created activities based on game strategies, and assessed the success. Through these strategies the students were more engaged in discussion, more willing to ask questions and performed more authentic demonstrations of information literacy skills.

At a time when the majority of college students play and have experience with video games, we as librarians can increase the worth of those game skills. A successful researcher and a successful game player share similar skills and through the application of games within our classrooms we can create rewarding experiences for both the students and the librarians.

Tom has 12 pieces of candy, but he wants a piece of pizza. Jon has 4 cans of soda and wants candy. Bill has 2 packs of gum and wants soda. Steve has 1 piece of pizza and wants gum.
If 4 pieces of candy = 1 soda can, 2 cans = 1 pack of gum, and 2 packs of gum = 1 piece of pizza, how much candy will Tom have left once he has a piece of pizza?

Sound familiar? It’s not much different than any of those dreaded story problems we all faced in junior high and high school math. The reason I bring this up is that I had a great conversation with an 11 year old this evening about a game he is currently playing, Final Fantasy V. A great classic SNES game recently re-released on the Game Boy Advance. He was talking about where his at in the game, which went something like this:

I'm currently a level 18 paladin with monk fighting skills, if I have level 19 monk skills then I can become a level 20 barbarian and unlock the Black Wizards' summon magic using the Bahmout scale from defeating the Fallen Knight. (Granted the names, classes, and skills are changed)

If you know anything about Final Fantasy this string of events could not happen - but the logic holds true. Take out the fantasy setting and this statement is not all that different from the one at the top of the post. Some parents, teachers and others see this level of game involvement as an example of a kid "lost" in the game or sucked in and wasting time. But the 11 year old was able to project the logic out through this series of events to reach his desired outcome. The logic is often more complex than the traditional logic of traditional word problems. The capacity for logic and success is clearly there.

Who says games are not making us think? Here's an eleven year old that would cringe at the first word problem but would log hours into solving and completing the second. It's a matter of motivation... and that's were we come in.

Paul
>He also said, "I like games were I can customize a lot of stuff, it makes it feel more like my game."
I'm hoping that this phrase sounds familiar.

Failure is not a lack of effort, it's a lack of understanding.

My wife raised a good point with me, "All this educational stuff works for games like Zelda, but it doesn't really apply to me if I just play Mario Kart." Now my wife, in spite of my best efforts, would not identify herself as a gamer (although she logged two months worth of Brain Age over the summer). But that is the point. Another librarian and co-worker raised the same question; Do these strategies and applications fit for those that don't play video games? Yes.

Before I dig further into the research, I want to make a comparison that I don't often see.
Why people fail at games and research. The parallels exist. A co-worker and fellow librarian that I respect stated that she could never figure out which buttons to press. My wife has echoed that sentiment as well. There is a frustration there in both cases. What button should I push, what site should I choose, how to I get what I need? I believe that the problem exists in both games and research because people do not know how to get at what they need. The lack of understanding the system creates failure.

Think about these questions in terms of both gaming and research:
- If the interface is confusing can the user move beyond it?
Think of the well documented simplicity of Google's interface compare to library databases like OCLC or EBSCO. Think of the 10+ button of the PS2 or XBox 360 controller compared to the Nintendo Wii's 3 buttons. There is an effort to simplify for the benefit of the user.

- If the user doesn't know how to navigate the interface without training, what is the incentive to move on?
If the user is confused by where to go or what buttons to push the fun of the game quickly dies. If the user is confused by how to find relevant results in a library resource, does their frustration manifests elsewhere? Do they give up or find lower quality sources? When user starts a game or a project with good intentions, where are we to help?

- How can the user succeed without knowing the physics of the system?
The idea of testing and exploring within the game environment are essential for success. I told my wife of a "power slide" move within Mario Kart and she was surprised, "Really!" I knew this because I tested the physics of the game. What about subject terms in a database? What happens when a user doesn't test the limits of the game or search? If the physics of a game are unknown, how does the player know how to succeed. If the physics of a database are unknown, how can the user find what is needed?

-What about a lack of confidence?
There is an implied correlation between the amount of time practicing either with the game, or practicing a search database. The more a user can practice, the more their confidence level increases, which leads to their exploration and testing of the physics limits. How can we as instructors help support this confidence?

Both gamers and our students have "ah-ha" moments when they discover a new feature, skill, article or link within the system. We need to help these moments happen more often.

Or in other words, I'm not just a researcher I'm also a gamer. And I've been doing some of both recently. There are a few projects that I'm trying to finish up for my final master's degree class and I've been sucked into two games recently. Both of which helps explain my absence and has provided some interesting correlations.

The research on marketing is interesting since I'm limited to only scholarly sources. (I have to laugh after typing that, if one of my students said that it'd be hard not to reply with, "And that's a bad thing?") But with marketing being as fluent as it is and after reading about the wonderful work others are blogging about... that's where the innovation is - on the ground. Granted if you are reading this blog you place some value on blogging, but it's got me to stop and think about the sources students are using. If I'm citing some ideas from Brian (who's "The Ubiquitous Librarian" blog is very insightful) on his blog why is it any less useful than sighting from his upcoming book published by ALA? Editorial process? There is a difference between application (blogs) and research (publications), but that's a whole other debate. The gaming difference is a matter of static versus interactive.

I've sunk a few late night hours into playing the action-RPG game Diablo II online. The offline and online worlds are the same, but the difference is the interaction online. The main story is the same, but through online interactions of those in the game - the game's focus can shift and adjust to those playing. Reading an article can only take me so far, but through the personal interaction of people in the field we can modify and adapt as we go to create and evolve ideas to fit the changing situations. Working together either in the game or in our field allows us all a better chance at success in our goal.

Okay so playing a game online is more interactive than just reading an article, so what? The interaction is not only more engaging but more rewarding. It's quality information because it came from someone practicing it. I trust it because they are doing it. The information is just what I needed to move forward... Starting to sound familiar?

I had a student say it to me today. I used it as a chance to talk about evaluating the source. Maybe it is a quality source, but without asking and exploring the student wouldn't know. Exploration and evaluation are key... something I learned the hard way after a level 25 character tried to kill me.

Help me out. Take a look at this draft of my survey.

Click here to take the survey now.

Please let me know your thoughts? Are the questions clear? Do they make sense? Any changes in wording and other suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for the help in refining this tool.

Paul

I'm out of rhythm. Well, given that I can't dance that shouldn't come as a surprise, but I got out of my posting rhythm this past week. I first I thought that I didn't really have a whole lot new to add after spending two weeks of new content posts. But yesterday I realized how much I value keeping up with my blogs. I value the information and the insight people provide, and I just recently had someone tell that to me. Thanks.

My Thanksgiving started with cleaning 4 20lbs turkeys, getting covered in brine and ended with some late night gaming sessions. Sure there was family and a little shopping along the way as well. I did use the weekend to get caught up on some articles that I've wanted to read. And so I'll post some summaries of those.

I've also been running silent after the research momentum of the console launches. I'm close to finishing a draft of my survey and I'll be looking for feedback on the questions once I'm done... so expect a post here for that. Once the survey is done I'll be trying to push it out to as many people as possible and I hoping some fellow bloggers will help.

There's what's on tap for the next week or so. Talk to you soon.

Not to be out done by my interviewing of PS3 seekers on Thursday night, I went out on Saturday night to see who was out waiting for the Wii (Nintendo's new system). I thought that I'd find fewer people but those out would be interested in the games, not the profit of Ebay. Although, for the prices the PS3 was getting who could blame them.

I thought I'd name this post "For the Love of the Game" since the percentage of those flipping the Wii was much smaller, but the title fits. Of the 8 people I interviewed between Target and Best Buy, much of what they said was consistent with the PS3 interviewees.

Beyond "practice" as what makes them good, two said they learn quick. Again, as with the PS3, I saw a few students from my college. One of whom said, "I catch on quickly and figure it out."
Another gamer said, "I just get it." While one the surface these may not seem all that insightful, but paired with the results of my recent class activity (read below if interested) helps to explain why students may have rushed through demonstrating their search results. They "get it" or at least the end product and the motions to get there. Whether or not they understand why they are going where they are going, using certain tools, and decisions is in question. I can be good at a game because I know how to use the game system to advance - the same is true for research. But I may not be able to explain why I am choosing the path I am. Sounds like a teachable moment (ahh, buzzword) to me.

When asked what they do when they get stuck there were two answers that were different from the previous statements of trying all opitions and then "cheating" by asking for help.

- "I don't get stuck." I've heard this in class before, usually followed by some poor source choices. Self-determination is a wonderful and dangerous thing, and breaking down that wall is important for reference and instruction.

- "I set it down and come back to it the next day." This isn't that different from what others had said, but this gamer went a step further, "Now that I'm in college, I do the same with my homework." By taking a break and coming back he felt he was able to get through most challenges or questions. It was great to see someone make the education / gaming connection that I'm working toward.

Both of these experiences were a lot of fun. The people I met and the stories they told are most certainly interesting. Maybe I'll come back to those sometime. But until then, this exercise was a good test of some questions and really helped me focus in on some ideas. Plus, it was fun.

Tonight I went out and talked with the people in line at both Best Buy and Target. Best Buy had about 26 people in line and they stated they were told the store had 27 PS3. They were fun to talk with, most had tents, and even a few were running power cables out of their cars. I saw a few of my students at Best Buy. I think they were surprised to see me, but we had a good conversation. Target had about 12 people in line, but they were not sure if the store had 8 or 12 PS3s. All in all I interviewed 6 people and got some useful information.



I had some survey questions I wanted to test out and cold gamers, waiting in line in the dark is a captive audience. asked the people questions about what they are were planning on doing with their PS3 (of all the people in both lines (38), only 2 said they were planning on selling it. I asked a few questions on what systems they owned and why they play. I was surprised by the number of systems people have from the last two generations. There was a wide range of responses to why they game, and many cited playing old N64 games as a fun social interaction.

The two questions I was directly interested in and that I believe relate to education and research were:
1) What makes you a good gamer?
2) What do you do when you are stuck in a game?
Both I think parallel how people respond and act during the research process, at least that is my hypothesis.

1)"Lots and lots of practice." Practice was the response from all six people interviewed. In games, as in the research process there is not a quick fix and one path that always works. Through practice and experience we are able to navigate that path more efficiently. Heck, as librarians, we don't always know the quickest search with the most relevant entries. It is only through our practice that we can come close and adapt to find what is needed.

2) "It's not fun if you don't try it for as long as you can without doing it."
"I don't like cheating in a game unless I tried everything." The personal determination is wonderful. If only our content to hold their interest as long (it can if we try, hence that's why I'm here). I see this mentality at the reference desk quite often. We are their last place to go when they are stuck. Is this mentality used in research as well? They want to try and figure it out and any help is "cheating?" If it is that latter, then we need to market ourselves differently. As the controversial Stanley Wilder said at the 2005 ACRL National Conference, we should be their first stop not their last.

"If it's driving me absolutely insane... maybe I might ask for help." I don't want reference to be seen as that, and I hope it isn't but it is a challenge if there is the mentality that they should be able to get it and coming for help admits defeat.

Another person said that there was nothing worse than watching someone breeze through a particular hard section of a game easily. Is this the feeling we give off if we breeze through a reference transaction? I've always thought there is value in struggling at reference. There is always the potential to struggle regardless of job title.

Overall it was a good start to developing my survey and gave me a bunch to think about.

Reach them where they are at... as one gamer said tonight, "They (video games) define our generation."

I enjoyed meeting everyone tonight. Stay warm and I wish them luck tomorrow.

Yesterday, we moved through the final two game strategy based activities with continued success. Although by the 8^th one I think my excitement level had decreased a little. But the students were still moving through the activity well and able to demonstrate most concepts. Overall, I continue to be very impressed with the students’ performances on this activity.

And it appears the students are impressed as well. Between yesterday and today, 5 classes came back for their second instruction session and we had a chance to debrief and discuss the review activity - nothing but positive reviews. When I asked the classes if they felt the activity was valuable I got head nods all around. Myself and another librarian asked each class for feedback on the activity - what worked, what didn’t, suggestions for the future.

Some general positive comments include:

- “It was good to get everybody on the same page.”

- “It helped me figure out a use for encyclopedias.”

- “Definitely a good thing.”

Even one usually disengaged student said in all the casual tone he could muster, “yeah, I’d keep it. It was pretty good.”

Interestingly, there were many students that suggested we do the activity earlier in the semester. Comments like, “I wish we had this earlier.” Make me wonder what the heck they were doing during the other 4 library sessions? The flip side to that question is just as important is – what the heck were we doing? Being able to see the students walk through this process has opened a lot of doors and questions for what and how we teach.

Of the students looking to see the activity earlier, most suggested that, “this would have been nice after the first paper.” A few suggested starting off with it, but most suggested doing it at the start of the second paper as a review. This is a suggestion that we’ll discuss after we finish up this round of instruction.

One important comparison is the complete lack of any neutral or negative comments. Last semester we tried a similar activity, but it was not open ended and included no options for personalization. It was very task specific and structured, but still focused on the aspects of the research process… except we told them what aspects we wanted. The feedback from last semester was mixed. Some thought it was useful, but many didn’t get it or saw it as a waste of time. Sounds like a gaming strategies success story.

We have two more classes tomorrow and should have a little more to talk about tomorrow.

Here’s a problem:

If something is electronic or interactive
does not make it a game! Yesterday I took part in a TLT Web seminar by the 21^st Century Information Fluency Project entitled “Game Based Website Evaluation.” Sounds good doesn’t it? I thought so too.

Unfortunately, “game based” meant dragging a file card image representing different criteria for web evaluation into a yes or no box. Once the file cards are sorted, clicking on the “wizard” shows how many cards are in each box. Based on a simple tally, the site tells you whether to “use” or “lose” the website. It’s not a bad checklist, but that’s all it is. A fancy checklist, is not a game.

I was not only disappointed but irritated by the web seminar yesterday. Maybe if I didn’t write or read this site and others like it, I would have thought the “game” worthwhile. But come on gentlemen – that is no “game.” They did a solid job creating fake sites to evaluate, but the “game” is only a checklist, nothing more. Their “game” falls into a trap that many teachers slip into. Just because we create something a little interactive thinking it’s a game – can turn off our students and ultimately the teachers to the idea of using games. Done well, games work. But like any learning strategy, done poorly leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

Here's the link, although it's not active yet: http://21cif.imsa.edu/rkitp/challenge/evaluation/useitorloseit_index.swf

I’ve emailed the creators to see how they justify the site as a game and what research they did to reach that conclusion… I’ll post any response that I get.

One of the interesting results of turning the students loose to demonstrate their research process is exacting that – Their research process. I’m learning a lot more about where they search, how they search and why than I expected. The lesson was created to give the students the freedom to search however they wanted as long as they accomplished the goal. I’m thankful to have this window for observation.

I could be disappointed that not all the students are searching like we’ve instructed them to. But really I’m a realist. I never believed that we were reaching everyone, and how can we. Or even better yet, should we? Should students search like we do? Do they need to? Today two students demonstrating the research process for finding an article came to the same article. One found it through the library website and through our databases (yeah library instruction), and the other did a search in Google, which lead him to “Search for scholarly articles” through Google Scholar, and use the links within Google Scholar to find the full-text article provided by the library (yeah ease of access). Same article, same quality source, same goal. Is one path better than the other – I’m saying no. And we, as educators, should be aware of those paths and be ready to work with them and use them as well.

As a gamer, some of the best experiences I’ve had with games isn’t playing them but watching others play. Sitting and watching someone else work through a particular boss or puzzle can open up new ideas. Watching another player move throughout a game can open up new tricks and paths that I didn’t know about. Today was a good day to sit back and watch. Up until recently I’ve avoided teaching Google Scholar or Windows Live Academic. But after watching students play, oh I mean research, I’m starting to think of new paths.