Her Story

General:

It is a video game that mostly involves player watching several police interviews with a woman that is a murder suspect for her missing husband. The story happens in 1994 and the game visuals also follow same era's technological features(dialog windows and desktop that is from Microsoft Windows 3.11??) The player supposed to solve the murder case by searching a database of video clips(transcribed) and watching them. The videos are short and the interviewer and his questions are not known to player.

Platforms: 

PC, MAC, iPad, iPhone, Android

Genre:

puzzle, police procedural

Number of players:

single player, the player is solving a mystery 

Perspective and interaction model:

static, and sort of first person view because the player has no visible avatar

best described as desktop model I think

Game mechanics:

Basically main action of user is search the database, tag videos and solve the mystery 

Financing model:

Single purchase download

"Imagine and briefly describe how the game could change if one of its defining parameters (genre, platform, controller, number of players etc) were altered."

Genre change:
-The game with the same general story could turn to a action and role playing game. The player could be the detective or police officer. some 3D visuals and some chasing action could be added. The game would turn to mission type of game that a detective chases a murder suspect.

-If implemented in VR , player could still have the same role as current game, but instead of watching the interviews she could investigate the scene as well. In this case some change in the story is necessary because most of the detective work in this game is on the past events not the crime evidences.

-If number of players would increase to two, I can imagine a second player being the woman who is the suspect. To make it interesting the woman has lost her memory of the events and tries to figure out what happened herself, in order to delete videos that may show her as murderer or to help other player(detective) to prove that she is innocent.
The two roles will have different available materials and perhaps suspect character can decide on showing or hiding some pieces of evidence.


References:

1)http://www.herstorygame.com/
2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Story_(video_game)

21st Century Learner

The aim was to answer these questions:

1) Are you 21st century learner? Why? Please explain!

2) Have you met 21st century learner? Give some examples!

3) What are the main challenges or things to keep in mind when designing/developing a game for 21st century learner.

4) Who will be responsible for developing the content of games?

5) How will entertainment value be weighted against educational value?



based on:
1)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0xa98cy-Rw
2)21st Century Skills for Students and Teachers (By Pacific Policy Research Center)
3)MindShift Guide to Digital Games and Learning(BY JORDAN SHAPIRO, ET AL. )
4)Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Groff, J., & Haas, J. (2009). Using the technology of today in the classroom today: The instructional power of digital games, social networking, simulations and how teachers can leverage them. The Education Arcade, 1, 20.
5)Learning for the 21st century


1) Am I a 21st century learner? Why?

It seems to me that "21st century learner" is shaped and defined with her contextual surroundings: a)21st century job needs, life and society expectation and b)21st century tools, possibilities and mentality.
The first part (the needs and expectations) is a clearly external force that shapes a 21st century learner. We sort of "have to" confirm to 21st century job requirements or it will be hard to find and keep a job and income. Similarly if dont follow the trends and expectations of the society we live in, we will have difficulty forming social relationships.

And although in my opinion each individual is inevitably defined by its context, the second part(tools, possibilities and mentality) has a softer effect. We can(and we do have) different reactions to our environment. Although tech enthusiasts are growing in number because of 21st century opportunities; not everyone likes technology even though she might need to learn and use it for work. In this sense we are more free to be(or not to be!) a real 21st century human and learner in our private lives. However we all are affected by tools available, trends and our surroundings.
In conclusion, I think we all in some extend need to be a 21st century learner in today's world, apart from our childhood education content.

So am I a 21st century learner?
-I have to be a 21st century learner to survive in today's world!


2) Have I met 21st century learner?

Most of the today's successful people seem to be a 21st century learners. They have the 21st century skills such as tech use, communication, creativity and problem solving, management and personal development. Active learning and learning relevant skills and relating it to real world(as oppose to learning a subject as it is) is also a characteristics of them. Also in addition to practical skills mentioned above a 21st century human needs to have awareness and good grasp of environmental, political and economic conditions of the world.

Have I met a 21st century learner?
-yes plenty, if we consider the fact that being a 21st century learner is not a 0/1(binary thing) and each individual might excel in some aspects while being weaker in others. For example I think many people overlook the global awareness and focus more on other skills.


3) What are the main challenges or things to keep in mind when designing/developing a game for 21st century learner.
Based on the "Learning for the 21st century"(5)and(4) it is important to keep student and learning materials related to the real world and real problems. (situated learning)

Also social aspect of learning(collaborative learning process) is very important and should be considered when designing an educational game, as in "Power of digital games"(4) reference puts nicely, Students today should "collaboratively constructing new knowledge with their peers".

On the technical side I think learning game designers should develop their game in the quality that is comparable with commercial games that a 21st century human is used to. A game that is educative but is not engaging enough, can not survive in 21st century.

Educational games in general, should also reflect a well accepted pedagogical theories and practices. If used in classrooms, they are better to mach or complement the teachers preferred approach.

Another big challenge is how to incorporate more complex content in a learning game.


4) Who will be responsible for developing the content of games?
Since cool graphics or complex gameplay is not necessary to have a good game. Teachers(and in some cases students themselves) can make their own games based on the desired learning outcome.

In a more general setting the content of the game should be thought trough by educators, parents and psychologists to ensure a good quality learning experience.


5) How will entertainment value be weighted against educational value?
Well, as mentioned in "digital games+learning"(3), the aim of a learning game is not to entertain but to teach. Therefore the learning part can not be sacrificed for entertainment. Fun factor is important to engage the learner, however it does not mean that game designer have to sacrifice content to achieve it. In fact the art of a good game design is to present the educational content in a challenging and engaging gameplay and narrative.

The entertaining elements in game(well also depends on designer's choice on the element) should be kept within reason, because based on cognitive theories of attention, there is a limit to an individual's ability to concentrate. The fun or entertaining elements should not distract the user from the main objective and learning content of the game.

Second animation in "Motion Graphic Design" class

It was fun :D

Game Analysis: a variation of Rummy(card game)

General:
This game is a variation of card game Rummy. The game is played with 2 or more people , the aim of the game is to get rid of all the cards in hand. Cards have numeral values of their number and face cards have the value of 10.

steps:
1.from a shuffle deck of cards, player1 gets 13 cards and other players gets 11 cards. and the rest are stock deck faced down.

it it closed hand(players dont know what other person has in his hands just should see the number of cards)

2.player1 discards 2 cards by her choice into discard deck

the looping part:
3.player either can choose the last discarded card to pick or take one from the common deck

4.player CAN(dont have to) lay down a set of cards with either of these conditions:

-three or more cards from same suit are sequential(for example 2,3,4 from same suit)

-three or more cards have the same number or same face(for example 8,8,8 or three kings)

*the condition for the step4 is that the first time one does it, the lay down set should add up to at least 30 based on cards' numerical values.

**jokers are considered wildcard and can fit anywhere

5. Player CAN(dont have to) add some of her cards to the sets of cards laying on the ground if the cards goes with the suit and sequence or has the same face/number

6. Player can take a joker from the laying down cards and replace it with the fitting card

7. player should discards one card from her hand to the discard deck

8.the winner is the player that gets rid of the cards fastest. And the rest of players will count the value of their hands. the player that has not laid down any set will get 80 point automatically.




Game Analysis:
Type of game:

-Non-cooperative (it is a competitive game, no teaming up unless people want to help each other out),

-Symmetrical (rules are same for all)

-Zero-sum(there is definitely a winner)

-Sequential(players take turn in action)

-Games with imperfect information(players don't see each others hands)

-not sure if it is "Combinatorial" or "Infinitely long" although it can not go on for ever if players actually want to win. Maybe this phenomenon does not apply to this game.




Winning strategy:

If we start the game with the mind-set of perfectly logical players and no personal background information on other players:

I have not found a sure way to win but:

-Discard any card that its possible set-mates, are gone to discard already

-It is wise to lay the first +30 set ASP to avoid 80 point

-If had the choice, discard the cards with highest value first

-If laying a set with joker, place joker in place of the card that you are sure is discarded

Paper Review: Research-Based Design of Pedagogical Agent Roles: a Review, Progress, and Recommendations Yanghee Kim & Amy L. Baylor

Paper link here

Original Keywords : Pedagogical agents . Experimental research .Virtual humans.Interface design
My Keywords : Motivating learning , pedagogical digital agent, human-agent relationship


The paper caught my attention because it was in the context of educational tools and promised to have practical recommendations on designing pedagogical agents.

In summary they have designed a learning environment and in an experimental setting expose learners to 3 different artificial pedagogical agents: mentor, expert and motivator. Then they measured the students' motivation and learning outcomes plus their perception of agent's character(did they perceive them as intended by designer).


It related to the Reeves and Nass's work they found several social and human-like relation between students and agnates. For example students preferred agents with the same race as themselves, they felt motivated or hurt with agents comments.
They also discovered that agent's intelligence is not a must, for having a human-like experience with agent and improved learning outcomes: "The pre-scripted agents in our original study, however, effectively played their intended instructional roles without being particularly intelligent."(Kim & Baylor, 2016)
In addition, they found out that social and human characteristics were assigned to agent by students. for example expert was seen as more credible.


practical suggestions:
Split-persona effect: In this work they found out that two agents each with its distinct persona is more effective than one agent that has both functionalities. For example having "expert" and "motivator" works better than having only "mentor"agent that is "supposedly"(because I dont know how they actually implemented this persona) combines those two qualities. The rationale as they put it : "It seemed that it was easier for students to figuratively compartmentalize the agent information when it was delivered by two distinct sources."(Kim & Baylor, 2016)

Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2016). Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: a review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 160-169.

The Media Equation of Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass

The "question 3" and my general comment on this:
I might be misunderstanding their point here, but I cant really distinguish between modern media and older static media such as paintings and books. Don't we all know novels are just stories, but we get absorbed in it and sometimes worry about the characters?

1. if the equation means: people react to media in "somewhat similar way" as they react to other people:

I think this phenomena of giving a character or personality to objects/things other than human, is not a new phenomena. Also I believe that it is not a 0 or 1 thing. We do it all the time, in various levels. I have seen (moderately normal)people name things, assign them characters even talk in their behalf. When the "thing" gets more complicated(respond in some way or show signs of intelligent) or they are human-like in appearance(dolls, things with faces ..), more people tend to do this. At the end everything has a character even based on simples features such as colour and shape. A red triangle is "dangerous" and a blue circle is calm and friendly. And based on that our reaction to them is different.

2. If this equation says that people respond to media not in "similar" way but the "same" way as they do to people:
 then I don't really agree with it. We even might in some cases react exactly the same way, but it is not in all aspects. For example "do we get uncomfortable in front of tv or computer? to appear with the clothing that we wont like to be seen by other people? or when we do things that we don't want others to see?"
Then again it totally depends on the abilities of the media. Im sure if we had a judgmental tv with cameras and image recognition, to make fun of us when we are in our messy pajamas ; then we would feel uncomfortable sitting there : We react to things/people in the way they act(or the way they are). Same goes with people in coma/unconscious state; we dont react to them the same way as conscious people.

the rest is my notes on the article, the answer to question 3 ends here.
Computer skills:
-basic web design: javascript, html, css
-some old programming skills: java, shell, perl..
-some prototyping: axure



on "Old Brains Flooded by New Technologies"
I better read the original document of Reeves and Nass on this, BUT: why they brought evolution to the discussion in the first place? It was going relatively soundly before this  section jumped in, destroyed the flow of logic in the text and left me confused: " why they brought evolution to the discussion in the first place?"
So do they really mean that if evolution was faster, or technology was slower; we would have adapted to it so that we could recognise it from reality and would not respond to media as we do now?
Well, it is really hard to tell what would happen if this or that, but now that we are speculating, lets speculate!: Evolution generally serves as a mechanism for survival. living things adapt and change to improve their chance of living. The question here is what is the survival benefit of detecting media as fake?
Lets take dreams for an example. Dreams are something quite similar to media in that sense: it looks real but it is not. We are dreaming for long enough I guess that if there was a need, we would have developed an ability to realise that it is a dream. but so far we still perceive it as very real while experiencing it.
Moral: not everything that was around long enough, is worth evolutionary action!


on "Source Credibility"
lets start by saying that I don't buy the labeling computers as "news" and "entertainment" in ''source credibility" argument. I think it does not have much to do with people finding TVs or computer's person like that they are influenced by labels. Similar effects is seen when different colour of packaging is used or a nicer package makes the user feel or evaluate the product as "better quality". I bet one could see a similar result by tagging a screwdriver as "professional" and other as "household". People would start reporting all sorts of better performance from "professional" one.

"Who is the source of information" experiment under the same "source credibility" section is also a bit shaky. Experiment shows that people's evaluation of helpfulness, friendliness etc. is different when they make then think about programmer as the source. but why it is different and does that prove that people initially think of computer itself as source? Dont get me wrong I dont oppose the idea but the experiment only.

How to organise study materials?

After all these years of studying, I still don't know how to manage and sort information that I receive in different classes. And I feel stupid about it. There is more: how to keep track of deadlines, read the suggested literature, explore different ideas that came to my mind during the classwork etc.

I am having this idea of putting aside Sunday morning for going through course platforms and summarising the info in calendars for example.

Lets see how it goes!