Cyber Games Pedagogy

The "home screen" of the Tate Gallery's Art History Game, Race Against Time app for the smartphone.

“It should be noted that children at play are not playing about…their games should be seen as their most serious-minded activity.”

Montaigne (as quoted in Wasik’s Grand Theft Education)

Over the last two semesters, I have been brainstorming new and engaging technologies and avenues for learning into my virtual classroom. My students are already developing their own technological fluency and establishing a digital citizenship simply by their chose of an exclusively online course. However, quite often the course structure is “limited” by the bounds of Blackboard.  Few instructors and students (in my experience) venture outside of that sphere. When they do, they almost always bring the relevant information and experience back to the original forum instead of allowing it to remain in the public domain for others to critic, challenge, or support. In fact, last semester was my first experience using the blog platform as a means of interaction for an online course.

As an art history, rather than art, educator, my course assignments do not include art creation per se. My students are not creating art pieces as part of their curriculum. However, they are creating interpretations of the art through broadened perspectives and a greater understanding of the historical, personal, economical, political, and social context in which art is created. These understandings are grown and deepened through information dissemination and dialogue between students and myself. What other ways can I serve to challenge my students’ thinking? It seems that creating and participating in cyber-games serve this purpose quite well. Boyd suggests that I as an “art educator can quide students in facilitating [the] creation of computer games to critique cultural myths of gender role expectations, as well as other cultural narratives that confine individual and community diversity” (Boyd, 2005, p. 3). In addition to exploring the conflicts that exist in present and past culture, I would like to suggest that such creations could allow students a safe place to explore a wide variety of views both supporting and opposing their own. This space would offer opportunities to engage in “dialogue” with controversial topics in an effort for participants to be exposed to multiple perspectives of a certain topic.

When asked to reflect on the discussion post portion of the course, one of my students commented “I like to imagine myself sitting in a room with other people having a nice glass of wine and discussing something in a way that may not have been thought of before. This keeps the brain working and keeps us from only looking at things in a single perspective” (Student Interview).  Visualizing how this particular scenario could play out in the virtual sphere (my classroom), I see the great potential of cyber games to function as reimagines or reinventions of the artists, histories, and cultures we encounter throughout the art history curriculum. For my student, the act of discussing conflicting viewpoints is an engaging, somewhat playful, and challenging conversation that takes place in a familiar environment (to establish stability for the participant) with individuals who also like to discuss, test, and push the limits of one another’s opinions, theories, and practices. The idea of “playing” with the content of the course evokes the attitude of early 20^th century art groups/movements such as Dada, Surrealism, Fluxus and Situationism (Patton, 2011, p. 20). Video, computer, and other online games, “teach us how to play them” (Wasik, 2006, p. 32). As students create spaces in which they feel comfortable interacting with confrontation as well as exploring spaces in which they do not, students “play” with the material, “learn by doing” and develop a “unique and personal set of insights into the ways and means for creating something in the world “ (Thomas and Brown, 2011, p. 94). By becoming “creators” themselves and offering up their work for public scrutiny, they also deepen their understanding of the emotions of the artist in which they are studying. Thomas and Brown, paraphrasing author Johan Huizinga, go on to state that “play is not merely central to the human experience, it is part of all that is meaningful inhuman culture. Culture…does not create play; play creates culture” (p 97). 

The Lesson

Overview: Marcel Duchamp “believed that a work of art is completed only when the viewer is involved” (Duchamp as quoted by Patton, 2011, p. 20). In this lesson, the student will research, explore, and critique computer, video or ios games whose central theme is art historically based. The student will select an artist, an artwork, or an art period or movement for which he/she has great interest (negative or positive) and explore this subject and the possibilities for engaging this material through a personally created game platform.

Objectives:

- Explore a variety of art or art history based online games.

- Select a single artist, artwork, or art period or movement. Build upon your current understanding of the subject through various methods of research and dialogue.

- Develop a setting, narrative, and concept for a potential game utilizing and challenging art histories and theories.

- Explore options for bringing your game “to life” by researching and manipulating free downloadable authoring programs that could bring your game “to life.”

Activities:

See what’s out there. “How does the learning process work in games? Games, fundamentally, are models. They’re little toy simulations of some aspect of reality” (Wasik, 2006, 32). Online games are being utilized as educational tools throughout all disciplines. Research and explore existing games that function to articulate some aspect of art and/or art history. The platform for these games is not limited to your computer. Explore apps designed for a variety of smart devices. You should find a minimum of five different games.

Play them! Have fun. Play. Note how successfully or unsuccessfully the game articulates the subject matter. Was it challenging? Was it fun? Did it draw you in and create a desire to play again and again? Were you bored? What benefits do you see in playing this game? What did you like best? What would you change if you were the designer?  (These are questions to prompt your thinking about the effectiveness of the game. Feel free to elaborate and/or discuss questions outside of this scope).

Create your own. Here is where the fun begins. Select a painting, an artist, or an art period or movement in which you are interested (negative or positive). Research the chosen subject noting key facts, figures, theories, points of controversy, etc. Use a variety of sources to broaden your understanding and knowledge of the subject (documentaries, dialogue/conversations, articles, journals, personal commentary by the artist, etc). Using text or image “sketch” out a space in which you would feel most comfortable discussing the chosen subject. This could be in front of the fire over a glass of wine with friends or an art gallery in front of your favorite sculpture or a city park in the middle of the summer wildflowers (These are just ideas. Be creative and honest and let your spaces reflect you). Think about how would you interact with this subject in this space.  Imagine yourself in dialogue – have a real life conversation – with someone about the topic you have selected. (record it). Record possible conversation trends. Where do you differ? Where do you agree? How can you expand upon the discussion? How can you challenge one another to explore a different perspective? This exercise will get you thinking and deepen your knowledge of the subject you have chosen. Furthermore, it will aid you in creating a narrative for your game.

Using the previous exercise and your experience with existing games as a starting point, answer the following questions: how might I take this information and develop it into an interactive game? What would my narrative/story be? Would the game be narrative based? What concept/theory/idea would it aim to articulate? What would be the goal of the game: to win, to accumulate points, etc? You can record and explore your thoughts as sketches, journals, scrapbooking, digital imagery, photography, text, etc. What will be the backdrop for your game? Place? Time period? Who will the key figures be? As you begin to develop the narrative that will guide your game, consider this idea articulated by artist and game aficionado Marcel Duchamp: “art is a game between all people of all periods” (Cited in Patton, (2011), p 20).

Explore options for bringing your game to life. Once you have a rough draft of your game, research free downloadable authoring programs that could help make your game a reality. If you have no experience with programming (like myself), look for platforms that require no programming experience. Here are a few sites to get you started: GameEditor, GameDevelop, GameSalad, and MyDoodleGame. Record your experience through screen shots of your explorations. Select one program that you feel most familiar with or that seems to be easiest for you to manipulate. Explore the following questions as you interact with the authoring programs: based on my current level of programming experience (or lack of) is the program the right one for me? Will I be able to successfully execute my idea through this program? If so, how? If not, what alterations should/can I make in order to create using this software. Try to create your game (however, the completion of your game is not a requirement of this assignment…so enjoy! Have fun.)

Your finished project is a “write-up” of your game concept. You can present your findings and experiences through journals, storyboards, text, video, etc. Be creative and have fun. Be sure to include all of the information listed above. If you see that something seems irrelevant to your topic, please give an explanation of why you left out the information. You will graded on how well you present the following information:

1) the games you initially explored with critiques

2.) the subject you selected to research and explore as a basis for your own game (include notes, sources, key facts, dialogue, etc)

3.) your game’s basic concept complete with setting, narrative, and map of how the game would ideally function.

4.) the goal of your game

5.) ideas for bringing your  game to life

Resources: 

Keifer-Boyd, K. (2005). Children teaching children with their computer game creations. Visual Arts Research, 60(1), 117-128.

Patton, R. (2011). A Brief Art History of Games. (4 pages from his dissertation).

Thomas, D. and Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a

world of constant change. Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown.

Wasik, B. (2006). Grand Theft Education: Literacy in the age of video games. Harper's Magazine, September, 31-39. 

Here are a few websites that offer a variety of art history online gaming options. The only one in the "video game" format was the Tate's Race Against Time for iOS and must be downloaded (for free) for the appropriate device. 

http://www.eduweb.com/insideart/

http://www.sporcle.com/games/tags/arthistory

https://www.artsology.com/arts-games.php

http://www.matthewclarksmith.com/artgame.htm

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/01/10/tate-gallerys-ios-art-history-game-is-a-race-against-time-to-defeat-dr-greyscale/#!A474L

Exploration 4: Layered Analysis

“Teaching transforms into learning, and back again to teaching.”

Jean McNiff

Teaching as learning, an action research approach

Research Question (as posed by Mary Elizabeth Meier): As participants share their documentation with the inquiry group and engage in dialogue, what indicates shifts in thinking about teaching and learning?

Layer One: Code to Disassemble and Reassemble

Scene I: Reflecting on One Year of Collaborative Inquiry Group Work

Scene II: Planning for/Reflections on “Innovations in Art”

Scene III: Sharing Documentation and Reflections

Scene IV: Blog posts by Collaborative Inquiry Group Participants

·      Questioning//Uncertainty

·      Collaboration//Shared Experiences

·      Self-Reflection//Adaptation

Layer 2: Inquiry Prose

<<Questioning --> Collaboration --> Reflection --> Questioning>>

Throughout Mary Elizabeth Meier’s Story Constellations, members of the collaborative inquiry group seemed to speak in cyclical patterns moving from “questioning” to group “collaboration” to self and group “reflection.” At times these processes worked simultaneously, while at other times they followed a more linear path. Repeatedly members made statements referencing how the work of others and the work of the group influenced and affected their professional development. The theme of “questioning” runs throughout the entire project, beginning with creating a “big question.” A question that seeks to answer how to create an environment rich in student led learning within each participant’s context.

Thoughts on Questioning: Conversation and documentation throughout the constellation returned to inquiry, the “big question.” Within this questioning, themes of uncertainty, hesitancy, skepticism, continually surfaced. Some of these included fear of technology, the questioning process, uncertainty within an individual’s classroom setting, etc.

Thoughts on Collaboration (and shared experiences): The group as a whole seem to function as a sounding board for participants who entered the program feeling like they were already a “lonely island” acting as one person making up an entire department. The connections made within the group illustrate vulnerability, eagerness to learn and apply, trust, respect and willing contribution.  “Almost every meeting, I picked up something to take back with me” – “Technology” – “Teaching styles” – “how each of us was working…how I could do that…see if I could modify” – “hearing about your experience” – “you were so helpful…in helping me think about [list of courses]” – “sharing…taking ideas and moving along with them.” Each of these quotes from participants articulate the collaboration experienced, intentionally and unintentionally, throughout the study.

Thoughts on Self-Reflection/Reflection (and adaptation): Collaboration yielded self-reflection at the point of collaboration as well as when participants sought to share their own experiences. During self-reflection, evidence of shifts in thinking is verbalized. Although only one participant used the term “shift in thinking” others eluded to the process throughout their dialogue.  “Before I had only thought of…” – “…changed along the way for me.” – “I can see it coming together…I am still seeing a bigger picture.”

Layer 3: Reflexivity and Encompassing Metaphors

The process of questioning, collaborating, and reflecting proves to be a constant challenge of value and belief systems of the individual educator. At the moment the question is addressed a new question forms. The process is ongoing and uncertainties continue to arise. One participant observed “if you don’t have uncertainty or something that you are looking to define or know more about, then you don’t have a conflict or a question.” Jean McNiff states that in the process of question and answer, “the nature of the answer is not the end phase of a previous question, but the beginning of a new question. The process of question and answer is not to lead to a fixed ‘truth proof’, but to lead to a continuing dialogue, in which the understanding of each party moves forward” (McNiff 1993, p 29). The dialogue between the educators in the CIG is not final. Rather it continues throughout the process with no right or wrong answers, but instead “right” questions (McNiff 1993, 44). These questions lead to action and experimentation and back to reflection for advanced and improved pedagogical practice.

Layer 4: Seeing Patterns as Major Themes

One of the greatest evidences of shift in thinking about learning and teaching can be seem in changes of practices implemented, whether successfully or not, by participants in their respective classrooms. The blog posts chronicling the past year speak to the growth and challenges of the participants. As participant, Rachel, guides the group on a journey through her student’s self-portraiture, she illustrates how her students were challenged to think and create as individuals pushing the boundaries of their own creativity and perceived limitations. Rachel, as an educator, also experienced the same discomfort and challenge from the process as she assumed the role of teacher observer instead of her traditional position in the classroom. 

The data seems to point to the fact that when teachers “get to figure out [their] own professional development…get to decide what [they] want to learn” more effective change occurs and teachers become students who then become teachers sharing and replicating their experiences and processes within their classroom. One participant articulated this with the statement “what happened to me this year is what I am trying to do for my kids too.”

Teachers are owners of their own educational knowledge. They may share this knowledge with others, by demonstrating its internal validity in that they are able to live out their educational values. Peers may accept (or not) this knowledge as valid, by discussing the claim to knowledge of the individual, and sharing it by adopting or adapting it (or not) to themselves. In this way, those peers also create their own educational knowledge. In this way are constituted dialogical communities of self-reflective practitioners who share the same values base as a shared way of life

(McNiff 1993, p 45).

“…enquiry by the self of self…enabling individuals to develop their own personal theories.” – Jean McNiff (1993, p 17)

My personal layered analysis:

Currently the largest component of peer-to-peer interaction in my online course is the discussion board. Students make weekly contributions to the conversation regarding the most recent material covered in class. Half-way through this semester, students were asked to reflect upon this process. I typically have students do this at the end of semester; however, I am experimenting with the placement of this assignment to determine if by having students reflect midway through the semester they can see and address any areas that could use improvement or be challenged to contribute in a new and more innovative way. This layered analysis is based on a random sampling of their submissions to this assignment.

Layer 1: Code to Disassemble and Reassemble

The discussion reflection is based on all contributions to the discussion board and includes your original posts and responses to others. In the reflection, you are to analyze your comments while reflect on your written ideas and interactions with others. As you are reading, critically analyze your comments objectively—imagine that you’re reading posts written by someone else. Comment on what you notice and what reflections arise as you read. Also, feel free to cite any original course content. Please be thoughtful and directed with your analysis and consider some of the following questions as you are writing:

What do you usually write about in your posts?

Are there broad themes or specific issues that keep appearing in your writing?

Has the nature of your posts changed over the semester?

What changes do you notice in your writing?

What surprised you as you reread your work?

What ideas or comments in your posts would you revisit?

How do feel you’ve contributed to the online learning community through the discussion board?

What else do you notice?

What aspects of the weekly discussion do you value most, and how does it show up in your posts?

Layer 2: Inquiry Prose

Class submissions were not due until this past weekend (based on my course schedule from the beginning of the semester); therefore, I have not been able to spend as much time analyzing these as I would like or plan.

Thus far I can trace three consistent threads of thought in each of the submissions: the challenge faced by students, the expectations of themselves and their peers, and the engagement (or lack of) with the material through the discussion posts.

The challenge most articulated was a fear of rejection, especially once students realized their peers were utilizing the forum to connect with each other and they actually valued the contributions. (Note: each student was required to post at least two responses to their peers’ posts. Therefore, evidence of interaction and value can be found within these posts. However, the posts are not a part of this analysis.) “Will my classmates think my ideas are stupid?” “Am I interpreting this artwork in the right way?”

Although the discussion guidelines were clearly defined at the beginning of the course, some students admitted to having reservations about posting and some failed to see how such conversations could enlighten their experience at all. “The use of a discussion board for an art history class does not seem like the best method to learn more about artwork.”  Aside from being required to complete the task, students had relatively low expectations of themselves or their peers regarding the discussion posts.  One student states “I was not very cognizant that I was actually trying to engage my classmates in my posts.” Another alluded to the idea of classmates waiting on the “first responders” of the board in order to fashion a response.  However, this was not always the case. As students became more comfortable with the process and their peers, they “became more and more interested in what [others] were saying.” One student relished this opportunity to “socialize about” the content.

By reflecting on each of their past posts, students acknowledge that a certain degree of knowledge of the subject as well as interaction with the material is required to 1) create a post that fully explores the prompt and 2) is interesting to other classmates.

Layer 3: Reflexivity and Encompassing Metaphors

In the online classroom, students must take the initiative and control of their learning experience.  One student shared of the reflection process that “the one thing that surprised me most about [rereading the discussion posts] was what I am actually learning in this class…. Not only is it helping me to improve my posts but it has opened my eyes to the way that art is associated with lifestyles of societies and can represent what was going on during the period in which it was created. I believe that a piece of art is an expression of an artist, but I did not previously associate it with what may be going on globally or locally as seems to be the case….” Many have expressed freedom to articulate their opinions as the semester continued. Others admitted to keeping to the “topic at hand” in order to “promote and not hinder discussion.” Some have even discovered that it is in these tangential spaces that great discussions can ignite.

Layer 4: Seeing Patterns as Major Themes

Students seem to be trying to place themselves within the context of the course. Exploring how they compare to others, how they want to be perceived by others. A name without a face is still a name, a person; therefore they seem to be highly sensitive to how they “interact” with one another. A sort of etiquette develops among the students on the discussion board were “I am able to give my own opinions about a subject without someone telling me I’m wrong or right, because it is my opinion” while still trying to “get ideas stirring by commenting on other people’s posts.” They demonstrate growth as they move past the fear of rejection and build confidence as they go public with their ideas and open themselves up to the scrutiny of their peers.

Confession: As I read and reflect upon the thoughts of my students, I am becoming keenly aware that it may not be the class that is “bored” by the structure of the course. Perhaps, it is actually me. I still plan to implement a plan to utilize technology to aid students in finding their “voice” through the interpretation of art. However, rather than reinventing the wheel, I need to evaluate where my students are and work from that point. A natural tendency for people working in an already unfamiliar space (or even a familiar but comfortable one) is to resist change.

Resources: 

McNiff, J, (1993). teaching as learning an action research approach. London: Routledge.