Please don’t let “Gamblification” become a thing in learning!

Posted on by
2
Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

I often hear people talking about adding elements of chance to an experience to make it more interesting. For instance, adding a random reward for doing a certain task in a system….

Source: Gamblification – don’t gamble with your people unless you are sure! – Gamified UK – #Gamification Expert

While many, if not most games include some element of chance, this is NOT something we should add to learning games. At least, not when it comes to rewards. OF COURSE, we still need randomness in our games – all games are simulations and all simulations use randomness (check out my book for more on that).

If gamification is the use of game design elements in non-game contexts, then gamblification is the use of gambling elements in non-gambling contexts.
OK.
Fair enough.
If you want to increase visits to your website, by all means, feel free to offer some sort of random reward (like spin the wheel coupons, or randomly selected deals).

If you are going for gameful learning, on the other hand, then
DO NOT GAMBLIFY REWARDS OR PUNISHMENT.

SERIOUSLY.

DON’T DO IT.

The thing with learning, you see, is that the actual learning part should NOT be random.
It should be deliberate.

There are a few places where you might be able to introduce an element of randomness (like which assignment you get out of a set of possible assignments, or which quiz, ….), but any time you include a random element in your classes,
THINK VERY CAREFULLY
about why you are doing it, what YOU hope to accomplish by it, and what you think your students will get out of it.

There are already too many places in formal learning where randomness happens.

Please don’t do this to your learners on purpose.
It’s really not helpful.

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Open-access books are downloaded, cited, and mentioned more than non-OA books (and why I DON’T publish my books this way).

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

Open-access journal articles have been found, to some extent, to be downloaded and cited more than non-OA articles. But could the same be true for books? Carrie Calder reports on recent research in…

Source: Impact of Social Sciences – Open-access books are downloaded, cited, and mentioned more than non-OA books

It’s all well and good to talk about notions that knowledge should be free for all of us. It seems reasonable to expect that university faculty would share their knowledge freely – after all, they are being funded through tax-payer dollars. Even private institutions get LOTS of government funding, so as a taxpayer, I would expect access to the fruits of that investment (i.e. knowledge).


If I had a full-time salary with benefits, I’d TOTALLY be on board with sharing my research openly. In fact, I would consider it an obligation.


But I DON’T.


I’m a sessional, who gets paid by the course, with NO benefits, and no job security.


I can’t AFFORD to give my expertise away.

I have to pay for my research out of my own pocket.
I have to pay for conferences, etc. out of my own pocket (yes, MRU generously offers travel funding to sessionals, but it doesn’t go very far).
I have to pay for my own dental, eye-care, etc. out of my own pocket.
I get no pension.

I can’t AFFORD to give my expertise away.

 

Part of the larger effect of open access and, especially for pay to publish sources, is that publishing favors those with money.

It becomes less about the merits of the work, and more about how much money you have. I know this has always been the case to some extent – people with the biggest grants often get to publish the most papers, but open access has made this WAY worse.

Be the first to like.

Unlike

The Guide to Computer Simulations and Games NOW AVAILABLE!

Posted on by
2
Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

We have regained the rights to our 2011 book, The Guide to Computer Simulations and Games, originally published by Wiley.

We are in the process of updating it for a new edition, but in the meantime we are releasing the first edition on LeanPub (e-versions only; no print versions).

This re-released first edition is available NOW!

For the remainder of the summer, this first (1.1) edition is available at a discount ($14.95) as the proofing is not complete (). We’re hoping to crowdsource some of the proofing so feel free to contact us if you find any errors or omissions.

Note that when you purchase a book on LeanPub you will be eligible for ALL updates to that edition. In other words you will be able to download all updated versions of this book as they roll out for no additional cost.

So please, let us know about any errors, typos, formatting issues, etc. and we’ll fix them!

ENJOY!

Be the first to like.

Unlike

QUIZ: Is it Plagiarism? – Not So Fast!

Posted on by
2
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

I cam across this quiz from the EasyBib Blog today.

I have some problems with it.

Think you can identify plagiarism like a pro? See if you can beat this quiz by our citation expert and prove that you’re as plagiarism savvy as you say.

Source: QUIZ: Is it Plagiarism? – EasyBib Blog

Here are the quiz questions:

  1. Taking information from an outside source and presenting it as your own.
  2. Examining the works of others to gather information for your research.
  3. Making use of the works of others to support your own ideas.
  4. Using the same essay you wrote for one assignment and handing it in for another assignment.
  5. Taking text from a source, changing one or two words, and putting it in your paper with a citation.
  6. Copying a diagram from a website and including it in your paper with a citation underneath.
  7. Using the work of another student to create your own paper.
  8. Having someone look over your paper and discussing how to improve it.
  9. Using data an author presents from a different author, but not citing the original work.
  10. Including information from a personal communication, like an email, without providing a citation.

I’m FINE with most of them, but there are two that I strenuously disagree with.

One, I disagree with ENTIRELY. That’s #4

The “correct” answer is that handing in the same essay for two assignments is self plagiarism.
Forgive me, but WTF?!

This article has a more nuanced discussion of the issue.

If you are submitting a paper for publication, and it is one you have previously published, then sure, that’s a problem. BUT, if you are a student and you wrote an essay for another course (possibly even in another year) that happens to meet the criteria for the current assignment, then WHY NOT?

In this particular situation, you should really be asking yourself, “What is the objective for this assignment?” Unless it includes something specific about creating a NEW work, then put down your red pen and focus on the objectives YOU HAVE NAMED.

If the goal of the assignment is for the student to be ale to demonstrate that they know how to do this thing you have asked them to do, then,
Why should you care if they did it this week or last year?
Why should you care if they used it in another course?

Really.

Think about that.

What purpose does it serve to make students REPEAT things they have already demonstrated they can do?

The other question I have some issues with is #8: Using the work of another student to create your own paper.

This one is far more complicated than the article would have you believe.
What about group-work? What about collaboration? What about students helping each other? Those are all things that are useful, good, and very important to learning.

If you use that student’s work without their knowledge or permission, that’s a problem.

If you have their permission, less of a problem provided the instructor is OK with collaboration, and provided you acknowledge the other student’s help. (i.e. Cite them. Explain how they helped you. That sort of thing.)

 

Both of these questions encourage instructors to isolate their students from each other and to pit them against each other, neither of which are conducive to learning, OR to the creating of a feeling of community.

What do YOU think?

Be the first to like.

Unlike

The Guide to Computer Simulations and Games, 1st(+1) edition almost done.

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

We are almost there. The publisher webpage is up, and we are offering a free preview that includes the first two chapters. We have regained the rights to our 2011 book, The Guide to Computer Simulations and Games, originally published by Wiley.

We are in the process of updating it for a new edition, but in the meantime we have decided to release the first edition on LeanPub (e-versions only; no print versions).

This re-released first edition will be available in July 2018. It’s almost done.

In order to make it available as quickly as possible, we will be releasing the 1.1 edition at a discount before the proofing is complete. We’re hoping to crowdsource some of the proofing so feel free to contact us if you find any errors or omissions. Note that if you purchase a book on LeanPub you will be eligible for ALL updates to that edition. In other words you will be able to download the updated version of this book for no additional cost.

Watch this space for the release announcement!

For more information on this book, try here.

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Worth Sharing: The genetic fallacy: When is it okay to criticize a source? | The Logic of Science

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

Not new, but an excellent take on the issue.

Lashierarchy of scientific evidence, randomized controlled study, case, cohort, research designt week, I wrote a post on the hierarchy of scientific evidence which included the figure to the right. In that post, I explained why some types of scientific papers produced more robust results than others. Some people, however, took issue with that  and accused me of committing a genetic fallacy because I was attacking the source of their information rather than the information itself. They were specifically unhappy about my claim that personal anecdotes, gut feelings, counter-factual websites, etc. did not constitute scientific evidence. After all, how dare I assert that their opinions weren’t as valuable as a carefully controlled study (note the immense sarcasm). In reality, of course, my argument was not fallacious, and they were simply misunderstanding how the genetic fallacy works. This misunderstanding is, however, quite common and somewhat understandable. The genetic fallacy can admittedly be very confusing. Therefore, I want to briefly explain what this fallacy is, how to spot it, and when it is and is not acceptable to criticize the source of an argument/piece of information.

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, then much of this may sound very familiar. That is because I have already covered a lot of the key points in a previous post on ad hominem fallacies. The ad hominem fallacy is generally considered to be a type of genetic fallacy; therefore, the same general rules apply.

Source: The genetic fallacy: When is it okay to criticize a source? | The Logic of Science

Be the first to like.

Unlike

The Guide to Computer Simulations and Games to be re-released.

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

We have regained the rights to our 2011 book, The Guide to Computer Simulations and Games, originally published by Wiley.

We are in the process of updating it for a new edition, but in the meantime we have decided to release the first edition on LeanPub (e-versions only; no print versions).

This re-released first edition will be available in July 2018.

In order to make it available as quickly as possible, we will be releasing the 1.1 edition at a discount before the proofing is complete. We’re hoping to crowdsource some of the proofing so feel free to contact us if you find any errors or omissions. Note that if you purchase a book on LeanPub you will be eligible for ALL updates to that edition. In other words you will be able to download the updated version of this book for no additional cost.

Watch this space for the release announcement!

For more information on this book, try here: http://bit.ly/mhm-sg-Book

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Maybe people aren’t so much bad as weak.

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

Hmmm, so people aren’t naturally cruel, or selfish.

(So much for Dawkins’ “selfish gene“)
I would say that people are, however, easy to manipulate.
This supports my theory that MOST people aren’t evil, merely weak.
For the most part, they will lean whichever way those around them lean.

MOST people will follow whatever path seems the least threatening to their inner self.

It turns out that at least some of our favorite psychological experiments – the ones that have formed the basis of what we think people are like. Like this one:

Stanford Prison Experiment: why famous psychology studies are now being torn apart  – Vox

A new exposé published by Medium based on previously unpublished recordings of Philip Zimbardo, the Stanford psychologist who ran the study, and interviews with his participants, offers convincing evidence that the guards in the experiment were coached to be cruel.

Source: Stanford Prison Experiment: why famous psychology studies are now being torn apart  – Vox

So, we don’t really know how these people would have behaved if they had NOT been coached, but I can guess:

SOMEONE within the group would have risen up to the level of leader/authority and HE would have become the one to coach the others.

THINK ABOUT THIS.

I think the Stanford study, flawed as it is, along with a great many others point to a very important fact about humans: WE ARE EASILY INFLUENCED.

So, to me, the hugely important part of this is the realization that those who influence others are hugely important.

This matters in “small” places like the classroom, but it ALSO matters all the way up the line to our national leaders.

I have long said that:

Schools go the way of their principals.

You can apply this idea to any and every organization there is:

Organizations and institutions go the way of their leaders.

When there is more reward (tangible and otherwise) in being selfish, or mean, or bigoted than there is in being altruistic, kind, and tolerant, people will become selfish, mean, and bigoted .

I also think the longer people “sit” in a particular mindset, the harder it will become to shift that. Also, the more extreme the reward, the stronger the tendency.

People that appeared to be kind, tolerant, and generous CAN BECOME selfish, mean, and intolerant, given the right set of circumstances. Almost ALL of them.

Fear (or threat) really doesn’t produce lasting, reliable effects.

You can never rely on a horse that is educated by fear. There will always be something that he fears more than you. But, when he trusts you, he will ask you, what to do when he is afraid.

–Antoine de Pluvinel

This is also true for people.

Be the first to like.

Unlike