Interactivity

Personally, I’m a visual person. I’d sooner look at (or as James Gee says, “read”) a book of photographs than read text. I believe my attention is more focused and my interpretive skills work best when looking at pictures (thank you Historic Tale Construction Site). But, as Gee mentions, pictures are often not enough; words are also needed. While pictures and words often communicate different things in a “multimodal” text, they exist in a symbiotic state: “the combination of the two modes communicates different things that neither of the modes does separately.” They need each other to adequately covey a message. As Gee argues, today, multimodal literacy goes beyond the boundaries of just pictures and text, pulling “sounds, music, movement and bodily sensations” into the learning experience. (18) And that’s where video gaming comes in. According to Gee, video gaming can inspire a whole new way of learning – 36 in all – that most people never recognize or appreciate.

However, I can appreciate many of his learning principles as conveyed through the video gamming experience. As a player (and winner, I might add) of Castle Wolfenstein, I understand his Semiotic, Semiotic Domains, and Amplification of Input Principles to name just a few. And as an internet player of Call of Duty and Allied Assault, I can realize just about all his principles, ESPECIALLY his Psychosocial Moratorium Principle – ie. I’ll walk out into a hail of gun fire knowing that I can hit the Refresh button once I’ve been killed and then live to see another day. However, I can’t help but think Gee gives game designers a little too much credit with the thought processes they apply when designing games or players when they play them. It’s a little like an artist who paints a picture that’s expressive of his feelings rather than being some preconceived, planned out project. I’d like to believe that game designers design games that are fun – for fun sake -- rather than as a subliminal learning experience and players play them for the same reason.

Along similar lines as Gee’s multimodal thinking, Joshua Brown also brings in the need, and advantage of interactivity to teaching and learning. Sights, sounds, music, text all are important parts of the on line/web experience and can blend very nicely. The British Library’s Turning the Page is a perfect example, as is The Lost Museum (albeit a little dated with its lack of “true interactivity”).

So I think this week’s readings introduce the question of what level of interactivity is needed, in order to 1) capture and keep a person’s interest and 2) to teach. I think designers of history web sites walk a fine line. Do they entertain with the hope someone will learn in the process (The Lost Museum, for instance). Or do they take a more traditional approach – some bells and whistles such as a clickable map or two – but mostly text and pictures.

Comments

[John Aiken]

Jeff great post!

I couldn't agree more with your assessment. We need interactive tools to capture attention and teach. Right now it seems extremely tricky to get gaming programmers to think in terms of something that will be educational and interactive.

As a designer (for this class at least) I get scared with the concept of interactivity. I think you're right. Something small and manageable like a Google map or something dynamic should do the trick.

Also I showed off your pilot picture tow a few friends. You should seriously think of selling it! :)

[Jeff]

John,

Thanks for the post and comments. I think finding that happy medium between education and entertainment is difficult. I curated a number of exhibits at the museum I worked at, and the board of directors always wanted "kid friendly" componets to the exhibits. This usually meant electronic gadgets that would capture the attention of children...for 10 seconds. Well, the gadgets were nice, but all the kids did was push buttons and move on. They never really explored what the gadgets were supposed to teach them. You can see it at any of the Smithsonian museums. Interactive exhibits, with a lot of interactivity going on, but no learning. Oh well.

Thanks for the comments on the picture!!

[lyn]

Subliminal messages are definitely an amazing tool if used correctly. I have benefited much from subliminal cds and similar products. Where do you get yours from? I buy mine from http://www.chargedaudio.com

[Jared]

Hey Jeff,

I especially find interactivity crucial for the latest generation of students. Those of us born in 1980 or later have never experienced a world without video games. The action of interactivity between a screen and human has slowly become an innate activity. So it appears that younger students have learning styles and pleasure-triggers (I sound like a Psychologist) considerably different from previous generations. From this assertion I would assume that as this generation of gamers continues to infiltrate the professional ranks, they will develop better interactive educational tools.

You make a really good point in your response to John's comment concerning the ineffectiveness of many interactivity tools utilized at museums. I wonder if the museum’s atmosphere and reputation cause some of those children to quickly ignore interactive tools at exhibits. Especially if we consider some characteristics attributed to the museum:

(a)
General opinions that a museum can have an elitist and stuffy milieu.

(b)
Taking a step back, the popular notion that school and educational activities are boring. Thus when children feel forced to learn something, like at a visit to a museum, they resist.

(c)
An increasing number of museums are becoming “Disneyfied”. In that they house exhibits that attempt to re-create the historical atmosphere and context of the time period or content presented. Without discussing the merits of this approach, I wonder if some children simply get caught up in the excitement that they don’t wish come back to the their everyday world where video games play a prominent role.

Or the tools are simply boring and outdated.

[Jared]

Hey Jeff,

I especially find interactivity crucial for the latest generation of students. Those of us born in 1980 or later have never experienced a world without video games. The action of interactivity between a screen and human has slowly become an innate activity. So it appears that younger students have learning styles and pleasure-triggers (I sound like a Psychologist) considerably different from previous generations. From this assertion I would assume that as this generation of gamers continues to infiltrate the professional ranks, they will develop better interactive educational tools.

You make a really good point in your response to John's comment concerning the ineffectiveness of many interactivity tools utilized at museums. I wonder if the museum’s atmosphere and reputation cause some of those children to quickly ignore interactive tools at exhibits. Especially if we consider some characteristics attributed to the museum:

(a)
General opinions that a museum can have an elitist and stuffy milieu.

(b)
Taking a step back, the popular notion that school and educational activities are boring. Thus when children feel forced to learn something, like at a visit to a museum, they resist.

(c)
An increasing number of museums are becoming “Disneyfied”. In that they house exhibits that attempt to re-create the historical atmosphere and context of the time period or content presented. Without discussing the merits of this approach, I wonder if some children simply get caught up in the excitement that they don’t wish come back to the their everyday world where video games play a prominent role.

Or the tools are simply boring and outdated.