Andrew Stapleton

Aboard the Ark

After a short hiatus traveling across this great land of ours, I managed to get hooked up to an internet connection long enough to share with you some happenings on my blog. This week, in Sydney, I will be aboard the “Ark” in my role as Research Manager at UsabilityOne. Its not as biblical...

Can Technology Really Replace Teachers?

Posted by Andrew | Posted in Uncategorized | Posted on 14-12-2011

0

I’ve had the pleasure of being introduced to Lindsey Wright, someone who shares my interest in technology and education. Lindsey suggested writing a post for the blog specifically discussing the relationship between technology and teaching… so, here’s Lindsey’s piece… I hope you enjoy it !

Can Technology Really Replace Teachers?

In the past few years humans have made incredible strides in science. Inventions like the laptop, notebook and iPad have proven our ingenuity and ability to reach and surpass limitations. The World Wide Web ensures that we remain instantly connected to the most recent information at any time and at lightning speeds. This availability of constant data has made us increasingly reliant technology. We expect to see new and improved methods that will allow us to sustain our current level of interactivity and expand beyond. We use technological devices to keep us updated with our friends and families, conduct business deals and even drive our cars. It’s in the way we live our lives everyday and has provided us with a wealth of knowledge.

Everywhere you turn, you see a new technological breakthrough that has been designed to make our lives easier and more convenient. Touch screen technology is the most recent. It has become so popular that you can even experience it in common, everyday places like fast food restaurants and financial institutions. Yet where do we draw the line on technology? When do we decide to take the reins back and remove the auto-pilot?

A major concern regarding the direction technology is moving surrounds the educational field. Many scientists applaud the use of computer technology when it utilized to increase skills, but are concerned with the very real possibility that automation may soon replace behaviors that should be the result of human interaction. This is especially true with children under the age of one year old. Studies have shown that while the infants will become interested in a television screen or computer monitor, they cannot interact with an inanimate object and doing so reduces their ability to learn. Although this does not always apply to children past the age of one, it does paint a very vivid picture of how important the development process is and how a young child can be affected.

One educators forum, has discussed this topic in depth and the consensus seems to be the same. While all commenters on the site strongly believe that technology is definitely something that will propel us into the future, it cannot replace human interaction. A good example is what happens during a child’s formative years. During this time of a child’s life, they are changing and growing at an alarming rate. As a result, it is essential for them to have positive influences that will help to shape them into responsible adults. A computer does not have this capability. It does not have human emotions and cannot assess when a child needs attention on an emotional level. It cannot proactively avert a crisis. Children require outlets to express themselves and need to be able to communicate with someone on which they can rely.

Other forums, believe firmly that technology should be used more as a tool and resource for teachers. These educators encourage the use of tools like BlackBoard to help manage online courses, and believe programs such as Rosetta Stone are a great way to supplement a foreign language education. While such programs are useful these teachers go to explain aren’t concerned about being pushed out by the programs because they can’t replace real-life experience, which is crucial in guiding students in the right direction.

Still others believe that real teachers are necessary because unlike technology, human beings never breakdown. Technological advances are only worthwhile if they work. On occasions when the Internet is down, causing e-mail and other computer programs to be inaccessible, it becomes painfully obvious that humans are not entirely replaceable.

Although technology may not be able to replace teachers, technology can be an enormous resource. By utilizing new technological advances, teachers can ind new and exciting ways to educate their students. It is a teacher’s obligation to prepare their students for the world and what lies ahead. Thus, incorporating computer-based programs into their curriculum will provide students with a solid technological foundation, allowing them to be well on their way to a bright future.

Lindsey Wright Bio:

Lindsey Wright is fascinated with the potential of emerging educational technologies, particularly online classes, to transform the landscape of learning. She writes about web-based learning, electronic and mobile learning, and the possible future of education.

Why bad games happen to good people

Posted by Andrew | Posted in Uncategorized | Posted on 27-06-2011

0

I recently came across an insightful article by Julian Cram in Xbox World Australia. Julian was a fellow “Kromian” at Krome’s Melbourne studios, and in the article he provides an insight into why “bad games happen to good people”. His warts and all analysis, is a very personal account of developing games that fail to hit their target, and why they can seem to be outrageously expensive.

Its a definite must read for anyone interested in game development, or for any gamer who wonders why a game studio and can produce product of such poor standard. Great writing Julian!

Link:

http://www.xboxworld.com.au/games/xbox-360/thor-god-of-thunder/review.htm

On the Way to Fun

Posted by Andrew | Posted in game design, research | Posted on 18-04-2011

1

While my kids are at home enjoying the freedom school holidays brings them, I managed to sneak some time to read Roberto Dillon’s “On the Way to FUN” which I had recently purchased online. I bought this book as its subtitle — “An Emotion-Based Approach to Successful Game Design”– really caught my eye. And while its a relatively short read, it makes some excellent points, and is filled with plenty of examples — from both retro and contemporary casual videogames — to demonstrate it primary message.

At its core, the book is about a framework for analysing (and indeed designing) games. Dillon, incorporates 6 emotions and 11 instincts into the "6-11 framework" and identifies the relationship between them. He then deconstructs the emotional aspects of a gameplay session as consisting of three phases.

Before the Game: The game must feel familiar (theme) and immediate (clear goals & controls)
During the Game: Gameplay must rely on instincts and basic instincts (6-11 framework) which makes the game immersive, challenging and rewarding
After the Game: Satisfaction along with other emotions, plus the instinct for improvement (both personal and against others) enhances replayability

Dillon also contextualizes the 6-11 framework with other work in the field, notably the MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics) framework, Nicole Lazzaro's "Four Fun Keys", David Freeman's "Emotioneering™" and Katherine Isbister's "Better Game Characters by Design". Most prevalent is the relationship between MDA and 6-11 which relates the aesthetics (emotions and instincts) to the dynamics (player behaviour) and ultimately to the mechanics (core rules).

He adopts a visual approach for his analysis, which I found quite helpful. Using diagrams Dillon identifies and relates aesthetics, mechanics and dynamics that provides insight for both analysis and design alike. For me, this diagrammatic approach makes the framework both accessible and powerful.

Overall, I found this book providing some good insights into game analysis and design at a fundamentally emotional level.

Stuff Game Designer’s Hate

Posted by Andrew | Posted in game design, play, usability | Posted on 07-02-2011

0

Over at Edge magazine they’ve managed to rustle up some game industry professionals –Adam Parsons (Executive Producer, Codemasters)’ John Hopson (User Research Lead, Bungie); and, Jason Avent (Game Director, Black Rock Studios) — to get their take on the things games could do better without.

You’ll find pet hates such as poor signposting, unskippable cutscenes, and mandatory tutorials among others.

So what peeves you off in game design? Snake?... Snaaaake !#?

Head over to Edge and check out the full list at http://bit.ly/eIlCk0

Source: http://bit.ly/eIlCk0

Andrew Stapleton

Featured Post

Aboard the Ark

Can Technology Really Replace Teachers?

Posted by Andrew | Posted in Uncategorized | Posted on 14-12-2011

0

Why bad games happen to good people

Posted by Andrew | Posted in Uncategorized | Posted on 27-06-2011

0

On the Way to Fun

Posted by Andrew | Posted in game design, research | Posted on 18-04-2011

1

Stuff Game Designer’s Hate

Posted by Andrew | Posted in game design, play, usability | Posted on 07-02-2011

0

Category

Archives

Partner Links

Andrew Stapleton