Design and development of simulation/game software: Implications for Higher Education
Download 0.49 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Girls Like to Build, Boys Like to Fight
- Conclusion
The military has enjoyed a long association with the benefits of learning through simulation but only one report could be identified in the academic literature (Hodgetts, 1970). Perhaps a specific military literature exists but is considered classified and therefore it has not been disseminated. Future researchers might attempt to access this literature if it exists.Girls Like to Build, Boys Like to FightI attended one round-table discussion entitled ‘Designing non-combat strategy games’. Within minutes the attendees reached agreement that we were talking about simulation games. I was the only woman in a room of about 50 men. As the discussion proceeded, the men reported four instances of females, (either wives or 8-year-old daughters) who enjoyed playing the build functions of typical wargame products, but as soon as the combat started, they stopped playing. One of the most successful franchises (sometimes referred to as strategy games) would be those products developed by Syd Meier. His most recent computer game has concisely described four primary activities: build, conquest, explore and discover. Increasing difficulty level seems to be achieved primarily by increasing the opportunity for war. If this is true, then it may represent a definite bias towards a male aesthetic. Females might prefer to experience higher difficulty levels that emphasize the build, explore or discover activities. Future researchers could explore the design choices of existing products and categorize the ways difficulty levels are constructed. Generation Lap: Simulation construction kits in U.S. middle schools The phenomenon called Generation Lap may be another societal trend (Rooney, 1999). The term is reminiscent of the 1960’s term Generation Gap, where the demographic bulge of the baby-boom generation came to dominate social, economic and political concerns during that decade and beyond. In the current context, Generation Lap refers to a younger generation who are more familiar with technology than the older generation. Like an adept runner racing around a track, this proficient younger generation (of students) is more capable of ‘lapping’ the older generation (of faculty/instructors). A technology-savvy younger generation may create a market demand for technology-based instruction. If this younger generation is already a mass consumer of sim/game home entertainment products, then educational producers may be able to leverage opportunities if their educational products exploit similarities to sim/games. Evidence of a generation lap can already be seen in some elementary schools. While most computer games are intended as consumer products, there is another class of products intended for middle-school students (i.e. children aged 9-11 years). These products are called simulation construction-kits (Schmucker, 1999). They are toolkits that enable children to construct their own simulations, just as word processing applications are toolkits for writing essays. One product, Cocoa Internet Authoring for Kids (Kids Domain, 2000) has been developed by a major computer manufacturer and is available to teachers free of charge. Schmucker (2000) reported that 50,000 copies have been downloaded from the Internet and that this product is being used by elementary school teachers who are so-called early-adopters of computer technology. In these classrooms, children have the opportunity to develop simulations as an alternative to writing essays. These simulation construction kits may become yet another marginalized instructional method. Like other instructional simulation activities, their use currently depends on the personal commitment of individual teachers. There is no indication of widespread implementation in the curriculum. Future research could investigate the implementation of this simulation construction kit activity and track its progress. CHAPTER 7 ConclusionThe sources of disjunction/overlap between professor/instructors and simulation/game designers arise due to two distinct cultures, critical analysis versus curiosity. If the culture elevating curiosity is not unduly constrained by critique, then simulation games may serve as an access point to learning, especially for initial access to inter-disciplinary perspectives. Simulation/games serve to ‘invite everyone to the knowledge party'’ rather than excluding learners from the ‘members-only’ club of accepted disciplines. In any collaborative effort, commercial game designers are likely to view themselves as the experts with regard to the commercial imperative for profit. The development of commercial products also requires a tolerance for the iterative nature of design. The context of commercial game development suggests that professor/instructors will be expected to accommodate the market demand to design for specific closure, as well as demonstrate a tolerance for the iterative development process. The early conceptions of simulation/game design are still relevant. Game designers have indicated a significant commitment to representing objective knowledge. This commitment may provide common ground between the two groups. The need for plausibility in a simulation may facilitate future collaboration in the design of simulation/game software. This study was not able to specifically compare disjunctions between home entertainment game designers and faculty/instructor designers because the latter subject group could not be identified among the higher education faculty located in British Columbia. This result suggests that computer simulation/games continue to retain a marginalized instructional status within existing institutions. If instructional methods and simulation/game technology are to converge in the future, we can only speculate that it will happen as part of an emergent social context that values fluid boundaries between the production and consumption of knowledge, and an increased valuing of those habits of mind associated with an inquiring attitude. The mass marketing of computer games is serving as a crucible to test the design of user-interfaces. Millions of consumers are being acclimatized to the complexity of these environments and the significant learning curves that are experienced just to play the game. With the advent of the Internet and online education a number of phenomena are converging. Currently, thousands of people routinely enter ‘massively multiplayer environments’ at the same time to play a medieval simulation called Ultima Online. This recent phenomenon suggests a surprising new potential for established notions of informal learning and the social construction of knowledge. Better informed questions for future research would include three main areas: a) market profiles of the curious learner, b) theoretical conceptualizations about the appeal of anomalies, and c) design processes that include an integration of cross-domain knowledge strategies. The market profile of the curious leaner would include the following questions: Does the curious learner actually exist as a marketing demographic? If so, are there enough of them, sufficiently committed to pursuing online education to warrant the investment in online simulation-games? Is curiosity nature- or nurture-dependent? Can marketing programs create a demand for curiosity-based learning? Does the curious learner reject conventional instruction and seek other options? Are simulation/games a preferred option? We need to understand the intrinsic appeal of anomalies—those incongruities that challenge conformity and must be integrated to abate an individual’s anxiety level. With a more complete conceptualization, we might better understand how knowledge from one domain presents as an anomaly when viewed from another domain. If this can be understood, then we will have a clear understanding of how designers can become more conscious of processes that integrate cross-domain strategies. If these processes can be made more explicit, then game designers may be able to work more constructively with academics when creating learning environments for higher education. References: Download 0.49 Mb. Share with your friends:
|