These are public postings of my writings for the first course of the Graduate Certificate Program in Serious Game Design and Research at Michigan State University.
Each week, we are also required to post three questions for the rest of the class. These are mine.
Please note: these posts are not intended as any kind of commentary on or assessment of the course Iām taking, or its instructor, OR of Michigan State University or the College of Communication Arts and Sciences, or the Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media. They are solely my thoughts and reactions that stem from the readings.
Feel free to comment, disagree, or what have you.
Week 7
These are the readings for the week (Topics: Theories of Behavior Part 2: Community Organization, Diffusion of innovation, Media Effects, Putting Theory into Practice Using Planning Models):
- Peng, W. (2009). Design and evaluation of a computer game to promote a healthy diet for young adults. Health Communication, 24, 115-127.
- NIH Theory at a glance (pg. 22-31, 35-46 ā USE PAGE NUMBERS IN DOCUMENT, NOT THE ONES IN ACROBAT) National Institutes of Health (2005). Theory at a glance: A guide for health promotion practice. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from http://www.cancer.gov/PDF/481f5d53-63df-41bc-bfaf-5aa48ee1da4d/TAAG3.pdf
- Optional:Ā Daley, A. J. (2009). Can Exergaming Contribute to Improving Physical Activity Levels and Health Outcomes in Children? Pediatrics, 124, 763-771
- Optional: Anderson-Hanley, C., Snyder, A., Nimon, J., Arciero, P. (2011). āSocial facilitation in virtual reality-enhanced exercise: competitiveness moderates exercise effort of older adults,ā Clinical Interventions Aging. 2011; 6: 275ā280. Ā http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3212419/
Question1: [Week 7 KB Q 1/3] In what way are serious game projects wicked problems?
The notion of wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1984) is something I came across nearly a decade ago when I was studying instructional design models. Thereās more information here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem ) but briefly, wicked problems are social problems that have the following properties:
- There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem (defining wicked problems is itself a wicked problem).
- Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
- Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
- There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
- Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.
- Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
- Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
- Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
- The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.
- The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1984). Planning Problems Are Wicked Problems. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in Design Methodology (pp. 135ā144). New York:: John Wiley and Sons.
Question2: [Week 7 KB Q 2/3] How do we apply theory to design in the face of chaos?
A colleague and friend of mine is a big fan of complexity and chaos theory as it applies to educational leadership and organizational change in education. It seems to me that approaches to behavioral change in health could have many overlaps with those of leadership and change in education. Is there something there we can use?
Towards a Framework for Smarter, Adaptive and Agile Organizations
by Eugene Kowch Academia.edu link: http://academia.edu/1799041/Kowch_Towards_a_Framework_for_Smarter_Adaptive_and_Agile_Organizations
Question3: [Week 7 KB Q 3/3] How do we justify theory driven design?
In the field of health, behavior change can have life and death consequences. Something thatās been kind of nagging at me for a while is the question of how to we justify the choice of one or another approach, when the outcome can be so serious?
Personally, I think we can, because it is hoped that the game we end up designed will only be one tool in a much larger arsenal of tactics used. At least, I would assume that a response to an identified health concern would involve more than having people play one game, in spite of many games relying on the somewhat tired narrative of: āwe are counting on you to save the worldā. Even so, under what circumstances do you think it would be OK to justify the design of a game that embodies a single theory?