Photo by Rikomatic
The key takeaway for me
is the whole point about the need for new metrics to measure learning
from games. That the old metrics aren't working. This is the same conversation that is happening around web metrics versus blog metrics. If you use web site metrics to evaluate the success of your blog, they don't work for a lot of reasons. There was some
push back from someone in the audience "How can we measure virtual
worlds when we really haven't yet figured out what works and what doesn't." There was an acknowledgment from a panelist about the tensions between the need
to look at results and the need for experimentation and pressures of timing.
Each funder gave an overview gave an overview of their program
MacArthur Foundation
- Talked about the openness to games and the need for research
- Mentioned
recent studies about taking laptops out of the classroom and there is a
problem with using old metrics and it is important to look for new
metrics and rethink learning environments in general.
- Working on a series of research studies on the benefits of games
- New
learning environment puts games at the center. It is a new form of
teaching, not just skill-based learning. What does the next
generation of learning environments look like?
- How do those learning environments impact institutions? What do libraries look like in the future?
- The power of games have caused to rethink many things.
- How to begin to have conversations to understand it.
- New set of research methods for this. How do we think about virtual worlds and help us study human behavior.
National Science Foundation
- Two
years ago. The core thrust: high performance computing, data
visualization, virtual organizations, and learning and work force
development
- Solicitation on the streets for programs at the k-12 level to train students to use cyber tools for science.
- Looking at how to be less of training but more on learning
- Funded
the infrastructure, and less well on content. How to find the right
funding mechanism to facilitate collaborative teams?
- Interested in games as an objective component to study. What are the implications and ripple effects?
- We need metrics! Not only those that apply metrics but need to rethink them.
Microsoft Corporation
- Interested in games for learning and social change
- Partners in Learning program -- gave stats. Emphasis is on digital literacy. Program is world-wide.
- Funded
a project to work with state of Michigan - requirement for high school
graduation is that all students have an online learning experience.
- Grantees
- like Global Kids - found the right group to fund. They have been a
leader. TakingITglobal is a grantee. Grants are about taking it scale.
- Scaling is an important point
- Issues:
What is our assurance of quality of the game? What are the metrics?
What is the meaning making? Translate what gamers do into the language
of "normal traditional education" and out of school time learning?
Some questions:
What have you seen in terms of partnerships for people seeking funds for games?
There
is more open dialog. Interesting projects that are not the historical
type. Seeing more inquiries of small nonprofit academic research
entities. We're seeing less traditional applications.
There
are two areas - one where applicants collaborate and one where we the
funders collaborate. "We're just as guilty of being in a silo and
mired in our work." Make it priority for organizations to work
together and share lessons learned and commit to common metrics.
It is also no small feat to get traditional foundation board to agree
to fund game initiatives. Raising up of kids s is essential to
this conversation. Making kids s public so we as adults can
understand what is going on.
On the topics of metrics, we
don't have a name for virtual worlds yet. How do we get to metrics
when we don't know what we're talking about?
Government
funders have a congressional mandate for evaluation of anything that is
funded and to use quantitative methods and research analysis. Thus,
metrics are very important!
This is a time pressure question!
We've got this moment in time with the interest, but figuring out the
assessment takes longer. There are different ways of approaching games
and different outcomes. For our interest, less interest in games for
skill development. "Drill and Skill" We're interested in assessing
learning attitudes from games - How do you approach problem solving,
feedback, and how does learner's attitude change? How do you measure
the change? Where is an existing framework to help us understand
this? There won't be one system of assessment - and there different
types of dispositions.
It is important to also consider the
different contexts for the evaluation. It will be different for
universities than smaller nonprofits. They have observed that many
nonprofits don't do any evaluation because it seems ominous and hard to
understand. They recommend that the organization gets something on
paper. This holds them accountable.
Social change is a
difficult thing to assess. How do you quantify. Where is the funding
for an activist who wants to make game for change?
Some
funding mandates do not allow the funding of activists. Assessing
social change is the same conversation as assessing learning. It is
the same conversation. "If you want to change the world, it's about a
learning moment that helps you change your perspective."
Evonne/In Kenzo also posted some notes here.
See Rik Riel's notes here.
