Comments on: Discussion of Saul Carliner’s talk http://blog.nelearning.org/archives/2006/01/25/saul-carliner-discussion/ fostering education through technology Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:25:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0 by: zibit http://blog.nelearning.org/archives/2006/01/25/saul-carliner-discussion/#comment-14 Sat, 04 Feb 2006 04:37:37 +0000 http://blog.nelearning.org/archives/2006/01/25/saul-carliner-discussion/#comment-14 Ed ...in response to your seeking more information about the difference between games and simulations..Chris Dede (reknown researcher at the Harvard School of Ed) stated in an interview with simSchool (a project I work on) .... simSchool: What do you see as the distinction between games and simulations? What are the critical differences? Chris: To me, a “game” has a scoring system with winners and losers, but a game doesn’t need to model anything in the real world. It can be completely based on fantasy without any correlate in reality. A “simulation,” in contrast, would not have winners and losers, but would represent something in the real world or a scientific abstraction such as mathematical logic. Of course the distinction between games and simulations is a continuum rather than a dichotomy, so we can find lots of designs that are in between the two pure extremes of games and simulations. You can read more of what Chris said about the difference between games and simulations and virtual reality for that matter..at: http://simschool.org/newsletter/fall2005/inter_Dede_2.htm Ed

…in response to your seeking more information about the difference between games and simulations..Chris Dede (reknown researcher at the Harvard School of Ed) stated in an interview with simSchool (a project I work on) ….

simSchool: What do you see as the distinction between games and simulations? What are the critical differences?

Chris: To me, a “game” has a scoring system with winners and losers, but a game doesn’t need to model anything in the real world. It can be completely based on fantasy without any correlate in reality. A “simulation,” in contrast, would not have winners and losers, but would represent something in the real world or a scientific abstraction such as mathematical logic. Of course the distinction between games and simulations is a continuum rather than a dichotomy, so we can find lots of designs that are in between the two pure extremes of games and simulations.

You can read more of what Chris said about the difference between games and simulations and virtual reality for that matter..at:

http://simschool.org/newsletter/fall2005/inter_Dede_2.htm

]]> by: Ed Arnold http://blog.nelearning.org/archives/2006/01/25/saul-carliner-discussion/#comment-10 Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:19:44 +0000 http://blog.nelearning.org/archives/2006/01/25/saul-carliner-discussion/#comment-10 I agree that Saul led an excellent discussion at the NELA event. He covered a number of topics, each of which probably deserves its own discussion topic. One I'd like to drill further into was his distinction between games versus simulations. This is an area of interest in the work I'm doing now. I agree that Saul led an excellent discussion at the NELA event. He covered a number of topics, each of which probably deserves its own discussion topic. One I’d like to drill further into was his distinction between games versus simulations. This is an area of interest in the work I’m doing now.

]]> by: Brian Miller http://blog.nelearning.org/archives/2006/01/25/saul-carliner-discussion/#comment-9 Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:25:51 +0000 http://blog.nelearning.org/archives/2006/01/25/saul-carliner-discussion/#comment-9 Great discussion last night. As Saul led the group in analysis of when its okay to use rapid/rabid elearning tools, I thought of situations where I have to train small numbers of people--as few as 1 or 2--to use a tool or follow a procedure. Certainly investment in instructional design and high end authoring tools isn't warranted in such low-use situations, as Saul pointed out. In fact an email listing "how-to" steps with screen shots can suffice, or at least a powerpoint (with a colorful background and fonts, of course), or a flash produced from robodemo or camtesia. The emphasis is on low cost and quick turnaround. I thought this kind of training could be called "micro learning". I googled this and, not surprisingly, there's a <a href="http://www.microlearning.org/" rel="nofollow">microlearning blog</a>, a <a href="http://microlearning.org/MicroWiki.html" rel="nofollow">wiki</a>, and <a href="http://www.microlearning.org/index.php?blogid=1" rel="nofollow">conference</a>. Turns out that microlearning is similar to the concept than what I'd had in mind, i.e., quick, targeted, low overhead knowledge transfer. But as is all too often the case, the focus seems to be on the format rather than the goal (and didn't Saul warn us about putting the technology cart before the horse?) According to the <a href="http://microlearning.org/MicroWiki.html" rel="nofollow">wiki</a>, microlearning is "...a term used in the e-learning context for a learner’s short interaction with a learning matter broken down to very small bits of content....Learning processes that have been called 'microlearning' can cover a span from some seconds (e.g. in mobile learning) to 15 minutes (learning objects sent as e-mails)." Ugh, the mention of learning objects sort of ruins it. Anyone not convinced by last night's discussion that LO's have gone the way of <a href="http://www.menwithouthats.com/" rel="nofollow">Men Without Hats</a>, this research paper by <a href="http://learningspaces.org/who.html" rel="nofollow">Dr. Norm Friesen"</a>, <a href="http://www.learningspaces.org/n/papers/objections.html" rel="nofollow">Three Objections to Learning Objects</a> will do the trick. Great discussion last night. As Saul led the group in analysis of when its okay to use rapid/rabid elearning tools, I thought of situations where I have to train small numbers of people–as few as 1 or 2–to use a tool or follow a procedure. Certainly investment in instructional design and high end authoring tools isn’t warranted in such low-use situations, as Saul pointed out. In fact an email listing “how-to” steps with screen shots can suffice, or at least a powerpoint (with a colorful background and fonts, of course), or a flash produced from robodemo or camtesia. The emphasis is on low cost and quick turnaround. I thought this kind of training could be called “micro learning”. I googled this and, not surprisingly, there’s a microlearning blog, a wiki, and conference. Turns out that microlearning is similar to the concept than what I’d had in mind, i.e., quick, targeted, low overhead knowledge transfer. But as is all too often the case, the focus seems to be on the format rather than the goal (and didn’t Saul warn us about putting the technology cart before the horse?) According to the wiki, microlearning is “…a term used in the e-learning context for a learner’s short interaction with a learning matter broken down to very small bits of content….Learning processes that have been called ‘microlearning’ can cover a span from some seconds (e.g. in mobile learning) to 15 minutes (learning objects sent as e-mails).”
Ugh, the mention of learning objects sort of ruins it. Anyone not convinced by last night’s discussion that LO’s have gone the way of Men Without Hats, this research paper by Dr. Norm Friesen”, Three Objections to Learning Objects will do the trick.

]]>