Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers
Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers |
|
From: Schulze, Jakob; Goury, Ayal; Thyne, Jesse
Email: jakob@cats.ucsc.edu
or ayal@cats.ucsc.edu or jpt@cats.ucsc.edu
Course: psych 101: Informal Learning & Technology
College: UC Santa Cruz
Instructor: Eugene Matusov
ClassWeb: http://www.ematusov.com/psych101
ChildrenObservations: Yes
Date: 12 Dec 1996
Time: 23:47:37
Remote Name: ss1mac-20.ucsc.edu
This paper discusses different forms of guidance, that can be provided for children learning computer games. Based on experience in an informal, extracurricular environment, it argues that assistance is useful for the kids to develop a deeper understanding of the games. However it shows limitations to the frequently used approaches of bottom-up and top-down. It thus proposes a new and more flexible approach of middle-out guidance, that incorporates the kids perspective towards the game.
INTRODUCTION:
When children learn how to play computer games, they have two main phases in their learning development. For the purposes of this paper, we will call these phases shallow understanding, and deep understanding. A shallow understanding includes knowledge of how to move game pieces, what certain moves in a game are, and some basic idea of the consequences of those moves, and also how to make these different moves. Having a deep understanding involves knowledge of how to counter opponent moves or cope with changes formed by game progression, understanding of the meaning of the game, and/or the purpose of the game, and how to beat a game. We have observed that kids often seem to form a shallow understanding, but then they are not capable of building on their knowledge to form the deep understanding that make better game play possible. What’s worse, kids who seem to be on their way to a deep understanding, often lose their motivation along the way, and they never achieve the next level in their development. We hypothesize that these problems are often caused by ineffective human guidance. When helped by a mentor employing a good model of guidance, kids can gain a deeper understanding than they would have by working alone.
Scientific literature makes a distinction between the following two approaches in teaching:
_Bottom-up_: The guidance is organized as a progression from learning parts, tools, and "how" of the activity to learning the whole, the purpose, and the "why".
_Top-down_: The guidance is organized as a progression from learning the whole, the purpose, and the "why" of the activity to learning parts, tools, and "how". [from Eugene Matusov’s glossary, class web-site]
A concept of guidance that has been very influential in our class and our study is the Zone Of Proximal Development (ZPD). It can be described as providing guidance by assessing, “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by individual problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or collaboration with more capable peers.” {Vygotsky, 1978, p.86}
We hypothesize that the models of Top-down, and Bottom-up, will not work very well for teaching computer games, and that there is a superior model of guidance that includes aspects of both Top-down and Bottom-up, within the boundaries of the ZPD.
METHODS:
For Ten Weeks, 12 undergraduate students at UC Santa Cruz and 34 kids (grades 2-6, mostly lower income, of Mexican descent, and ESL.), enrolled by their own choosing in an afternoon project called Tele Arana Magica, in Downtown Santa Cruz. The goal of the project was to teach kids, computer skills (PC computers using Windows software and various CDs) through informal interaction with different basic programs (word processing, paintshops, etc.) and games, both specifically educational in purpose, and games intended for just having fun. The University students were placed in the program as mostly computer illiterate, and untrained mentors and roll models. The students informally guided, played with, and watched the kids (sometimes one on one, and sometimes in groups) 2 hours a day, two times a week, for ten weeks, and wrote field notes and held discussions about their experiences. Many kids did not show up each week for various reasons, so the usual number of kids each day was between 5 and 15, which made flexibility in the students a necessity.
The method for field note writing was to take a situation where some type of learning took place, and describe the event that happened, some reflections on the event, and some further inquiries. All the notes, and discussions and responses were posted on the classes’ private World Wide Web page (http://www.ematusov.com/psych101 Persons not in the class can access the demo version, just add “.demo”). For this paper, we cited off the page from both our own entries, and those of our fellow students. Due to the loose structure of the notes, our method for compiling data for this paper was to look at any instances where kids either displayed a deep understanding or a shallow understanding, any instances where kids were motivated to play games, or not motivated for whatever reason, and finally any time guidance was given in accordance to the models of, top-down, bottom-up, or ZPD, to help kids understand a game. We found many instances of all these things occurring in the notes, and we picked those instances which seemed the most illustrative of the points which we wanted to make for our study.
To protect the people involved it this study, we have changed the names of both the undergraduates, and the kids.
RESULTS:
The purpose of this chapter is to understand how children develop a deeper understanding of strategies necessary to play and beat a game. What is the most effective method in getting this form of learning to take place? In what environment does it foster? This is based on the premise that in order to win or excel at a certain game, one must have a deeper understanding of the game, beyond the shallow enjoyment of clicking a few buttons. But before we begin to look at the type of effective environments that get children to win games and play them correctly, we must first ask why it is that we need children to win at certain games? Why does it matter if a child finishes the task, or plays the game with the hopes of winning? After all, are we not trying to place more informal methods into our pedagogy? and who cares if the child wins or not, as long as the child learns something and has a good time doing so?
It becomes important for a child to complete a task or face up to it’s challenges properly, when we, as well as the child, feel that after doing so, the child would have benefited in some way for doing so. This benefit is a mental one, for which the hypothesis is that after challenging oneself to a game, cognitive skills may have been enhanced which can be useful for upcoming and possibly more difficult challenges. Thereby, the activities we design for children are designed with the intent of enhancing a child’s mind. Since that is the case, a designer programmers for a child to play and complete the obstacles within that program or else the child fails to benefit from the mental rewards for playing such a game.
With the completion of these activities, children tend to derive some sense of accomplishment. At first the assignment presents a challenge but after overcoming the challenge children seem to change in their confidence, and overall perception of self. In this example the undergraduate and the child who had not previously known each other, found a strong interpersonal connection after the child began to succeed in the game:
“Maria and I were just getting to know each other so our conversation was slow, mostly consisting of reading the cards out loud, counting our moves, and whatever instructions for the game that we needed to go over. Maria won ALL three games(twice on the second game), and she became more happy, talkative, and directive(by giving instructions, warning me of wrong moves, directing what we should do next etc..)as the games progressed.”(C.T. 10/05/96)
As the undergraduate reflects further on the situation and the change in the child’s behavior he/she recalls:
“Maria’s talkativeness and more confident demeanor was a marked changed from the quiet more reserved girl I originally began playing with. It seemed evident to me that winning agreed with her. As a child I too liked to win games, but I can’t recall exactly how it made me feel. Did I feel smarter? Better than the person I was playing with? More confident? It was interesting for me to see how being the winner(which she reminded me she was) may have caused such changes in her. Or maybe I was just then seeing her as she truly was, a confident assertive little girl.”(C.T. 10/05/96)
Clearly the child here has been affected by completing and winning the game. According to the undergraduate this is a positive change in which the girl feels more confident and assertive.
Often the child does not have the skills that some of the adults or other children may have. Children seem to react to such situations in a couple of ways. They may become frustrated and bored or they may recognize the need for goals and obstacles and create rules of their own. If the child is left to be frustrated and bored, he may find herself sitting helplessly in front of the computer until someone comes to assist her or explain to him the proper rules and methods for carrying out the task. An undergraduate describes:
“Later she sat down in front of a computer with ‘Snoopy’s Campfire Stories’. I was watching her as she tried unsuccessfully several times to get the game started. She had looked around the room several times and seen my observing her. I wanted to wait and see if she would ask me for help because I have the feeling that the girl doesn’t like me. After another minute or so of trying, she finally looked at me and kept looking without saying a word. After a moment I asked her if she would like some help, and she said yes.”(D.S. 11/01/96)
Another undergraduate observes the frustration a child can go through when left alone to attend to a task they are not ready for.
“I found him at the Lion King game trying to figure out how to use the mouse. He was trying to get the pointer to move slowly, and in small increments, but he could not control the mouse enough to move it slowly. He was almost violent with it. He would push it off the pad and had a very strong grip on it..”(J.T. 10/14/96)
If not assisted by someone more knowledgeable or experienced, children may make up their own rules. This is very interesting, because by doing so, the child recognizes the need for a challenge or task to exist with a starting point, a goal, and obstacles.. If the goal or obstacles are unclear, as is the case with many of the games at Tele Arana Magica, the child creatively comes up with her own.
“I have seen a situation where a board actually intimidated a kid from playing. See Jeremy, Nick, and I were playing ‘Life’ one day. I didn’t know how to play so two of the boys made up some rules for me to follow. With their rules, the point of the game was to get as far ahead as the other players by spinning the number wheel and moving your car.”(M.S. 10/27/96)
The two boys created a game for which the starting point was at the beginning, the goal is the end at the obstacles are the spaces in between and the chance of what the wheel spins. Although this does show evidence of learning taking place, the lack of proper guidance in explaining the rules of the game deterred the children from learning the intended strategies in the game such as, investing money in insurance, stocks, and gambling recognizing consequences for each.
Many of the children are too often placed with the problem of the game as being out of their range. To avoid the Piagetian understanding of the term developmentally appropriate, we will say that it is out of what Vygotsky termed the Zone of Proximal development. These games can be simply too difficult for the children at times.
“We have talked in class about why kids may be uninterested with the computers. We defined interest as spending a lot of time in one activity. What I have realized is that the children moving from one game to another is not a demonstration in lack of interest, but of difficulty. The little boy I worked with today was very interested in computers. He just had a difficult time finding a game that was suitable to his level of skills.”(S.W. 10/16/96)
Another undergraduate expresses his frustration with his inability to reach a child’s as well as his own ZPD.
“This game kind of worked on two different levels. One is on the surface, with colors and animations which entertain and motivate kids for a while. The other level digs much deeper, it requires knowledge and the interest to explore things, to read, think and work, and thus acquire new knowledge. The gap between the levels seems to be very wide, too wide for Samantha to cross. She would have needed a game, that leads her to the next level in smaller steps. I couldn’t do it...I’m a little frustrated, because the game was just not adequate for her and I believe it is my job to help her pick the right games. I just wasn’t prepared(we all haven’t done our homework in this area. It wasn’t ever assigned).” (J.S. 10/11/96)
When the Zone is hit and both the child and adult are working together, it proves to be effective.
“I feel that today I worked a little with Maria’s ZPD. She started at a point she couldn’t get by on her own, and I helped her till she was able to master the task. While it was an easy task it was nice to see a little bit about what we have been talking about in class and reading about.”(V.B. 11/13/96)
“I played for a little while with Moses looking on, and showed him how I knew where some bombs were(minesweeper). Then I offered him a try. He and I worked together, with me directly guiding him, and finally, after about 20 minutes, him playing without much help from me at all....This seemed a great example of the ZPD. Moses had some skills, but to really play the game, he needed my help. By the end of the session, he had figured out the game, and could find the bombs almost as well as I could. I really like minesweeper, and I was really excited to see Moses learn it.”(J.T. 11/11/96)
Besides getting the child to have a deeper understanding of the game, the interpersonal relationship between the undergraduate and the child is a two-way road in which both partners can enjoy from one another as well as learn from each other.
“As this is the first time I have worked with kids, I am learning that being an adult seems to be a clue to the children that I know more than the do and they can look to me for guidance. At first, I was nervous about working with the kids, nut now I see how it is, it is a lot easier for me. The kids seem to want my help, and this is totally different from the same-age people that usually want to just tell how it’s to be. I find that working in a collaborative setting is a lot more satisfying, since me and the kid I’m working with are both experiencing learning.(D.C 10/16/96)
DISCUSSION:
NOTES ON THE KID'S APPARENT MOTIVATION
In our experience with the children at the site as well as in the fieldnotes of our fellow students I found some evidence that, in our informal setting, following the top-down approach does not work very well. What we found was a couple of reports indicating that our kids have a very short motivation span. That means they expect immediate rewards and are less inclined to exert efforts over a longer period without them. In our practice that means, the kids either stop paying attention, or simply state that they want to do something else. Since we work in an informal setting, we do not exert any power to keep the kids at one task. So it became a pattern for some kids to just walk away. One undergraduate reflected on her experiences at the site: [C.T.10/07/96, class web-site]
"There were several interesting things I noticed in the events I just described. Antonia waited quite awhile to play this game, yet she played for only a short time and got up. Jack was initially very excited about the game, he basically took over, and played for awhile then when Antonia left soon he did too. Frederic also approached the game very excitedly yet clicked around only a few times and got up.
Three kids sat down to play this game, then in less than 6 or so minutes of play the all got up and left. Treasure Cove seemed to be very fun and attractive looking to the kids but it was much more confusing than it looked. The kids where able to click around but they (and I) were unable to find the "point". The initial excitement dwindled and they left the game very quickly."
Thus the kids rarely come to a point, where they take pride in a slow, step-by-step progress that finally leads to results.
PROBLEMS WITH THE "TOP-DOWN" APPROACH
An important factor in this discussion is the structure of the games we are using. More complex games sometimes offer an introduction that exposes the goals. "The Oregon Trail", for example, tells a story about the situation of the settlers on their way to the west, before the actual game starts. Watching it gives you a good idea of the goals and even a preview of what to do. Here, the player gets an understanding of the overall goal as it is related to the player's knowledge about real life. Starting from that it is possible to deduct sub-goals all the way down to basic operations. In my experience this good design often fails, because the kids are more interested in "making things happen" rather than "watching things happen" (which is otherwise a very good attitude). One undergraduate [J.S.10/25/96, class web-site] reported an example of a kid loosing interest in a game that did not start the action right away in his fieldnote:
"I asked Moses if he would like to play Oregon Trail and told him that it would be more challenging and included some reading. He said he would like to play, so we installed the game (which took some time) and began to play. But when we came to the first passage where some thoughts and reading were required, Moses became uneasy and finally got up, telling me he had to leave."
To serve the kids' needs, a top-down approach has to be characterized by non-directive interaction that is open to the kids' ideas and thus makes them feel they are "making things happen". We have not observed this accomplished by a computer program, so we think this is still a domain of skillful human educators. The question is, whether we (the undergraduates) could have done it. We see two problems. First, it requires some skills in the interaction with kids as well as a concept of how to arrange a top-down approach, that we might not have or that we are just beginning to develop. Second, the software is not flexible. Thus we cannot freely negotiate with the kid what to do, because of the given structure of the game. We also had the problem, that we did not have the chance to work with one particular kid over a longer period.
BOTTOM-UP INITIALLY WORKS BETTER
There is a large amount of games, that are simple in a way that their story is told in a second, and their goals are pretty clear. The strategies, on the other hand, can be complex enough to keep you learning for a long time. Examples we found were "connect four", "minesweeper", and "hangman". Since these games are set in an abstract game world, and have fairly simple goals, they do not connect to real-life background knowledge. Thus it does not make much sense to impose a top-down scheme on the kids, when they are eager "to do something". A guide would probably want to explain the goal briefly, but the main direction of learning is from basic operations (bottom) to more complex strategies (up)
Here learning strategies goes along the lines Dr. Edmund Furse proposed for board games: "The system to learn board games is based on a four layer model of the knowledge used in playing games:
1. Primitive features of the board position.
2. Concepts about the board position.
3. Strategies of how to play
4. Meta-strategies of how to choose between strategies.
[http://www.comp.glam.ac.uk/pages/research/ai-cognitive-science/learning-board-games.html]
Applied to a game like "connect four" a person first learns how to put the chips into the slots, sees how they pile up, and how they can form a row. Then he/she begins to perceive certain constellations as promising or dangerous. The strategies then include ways to create winning situations as well as skills to build while blocking. Meta-strategies can better be found in other games like e.g. "hangman", where one switches from guessing letters to trying to decipher the whole word and back.
Since the kids' motivation relies so heavily on progress, it is best for the guide to let the kid try to get along on his/her own while improving perceptual and motor skills, before using a phase of stagnation to lead attention to strategy issues. While the different levels build on each other and are accomplished in order, there is still learning going on at the shallow levels, and it is often useful for the guide to go down a level to point out board positions that might lead to the development of deeper understanding.
To the disappointment of the guide, the kids often do form these deep understandings. The guide might have a good idea of the essential steps a kid should take to beat a game, might even be able to transfer this knowledge in a way that the kid could understand it, but still the kid doesn't show the expected improvement.
TAKING THE KIDS' POINT OF VIEW
In our opinion, the frequently used approaches of 'bottom-up' and 'top-down' are too static. Even more important, they are aimed at teaching and neglect the active role of the kid in the learning situation. They fail to recognize the goals of the kid, which we would describe as mainly hedonistic. Kids do not choose to play a game to learn something, they play to have fun. With this goal, learning something becomes a tool for having fun. The game designer's goal of a game might be to teach certain skills, and maybe he even has a concept of how to do it. For the kids, the next step 'down' from the 'top' ("having fun") is playing the game. Thus they try to make their own sense of the game. So in a way the kids follow a 'top-down' strategy, only they start from a different 'top'.
Within the framework of the game, there is another way to put it: the kids start somewhere on a middle level of the game, where it is fun to play. Sometimes their 'making sense of the game' includes finding out what the game expects from them. By doing that they work their way up and down. They acquire basic operations as well as the meaning of the game as it was designed. We would like to call this approach **middle-out**.
Computer games would facilitate learning for kids, if they were designed according to the kids' approach. Imagine for example a flight simulator with a beginning level that allows just to fly without having to take care of details. It is then left to the player to decide when to introduce more realistic basic operations on the one hand, and certain missions (as the broader goal as defined by the designer) on the other hand. A good aid would be an intelligent co-pilot, who gives specific help (but that is a different topic).
CONCLUSION:
After a careful review of three months’ informal learning between UCSC undergraduates and Mexican children at Tele Arana Magica, we have found that assistance by the undergraduates has been necessary and effective for the growth of the children’s cognitive skills which are to be paralleled with the program designers’ intentions.
Different approaches of assistance have been attempted. The top-down, bottom-up approaches of guidance by themselves have often proved to be insufficient for our purposes. The informal nature of games and the addition of play into the learning process, changes the way kids learn, and those who want to guide kids to learn computer games, must also change and be more flexible. Our proposed approach of middle-out is an attempt to incorporate the children’s intuitive approach to a game into a more flexible concept of guidance.
