Practical Project Insights

- 26 feb -
This week started effectively thanks to our first playbook meeting and its participants. We got (literal) insights of the current tests and determined to focus on one target group for now. While keeping in mind that a more heuristical approach in general would be more desirable in the end, of course. The target school pupils are between the age of 14 and 16; “the ninth graders”. As a group with mainly internationals, we hope they will be sufficiently acquainted with the English language to make direct communication possible. Otherwise we hope the teachers are willing to fulfill the role of translator, besides our own beloved Finnish group member.

Since the most frequently conducted tests are those of mathematics and the basic languages, we will focus on those subjects first. Again, here it would be great to have a standardized framework that provides mechanisms that function across the board of the evaluation test subjects. Time will tell if feasibility and optimal achievements suit each other later on.

After discussing the test material, some difficulties showed up. Because the complexity of doing reliable evaluations over a longer period of time, we have to be careful with changing the structure of the test such that it doesn’t lose its verifying value of the previous years. This also implicates that the underlying matter being tested is determined in a strict way, while those underlying evaluation goals are not known by us.

Not only did we sharpen our project goals and restrictions, but also did we have a rapid, sometimes way out of the box brainstorm session about various elements of the new test. In between we showed our first prototype that is based on the straightforward elements of gamification.

During the rest of the week we discovered some more potential, practical risks about the use of gamification; it turns out that gamifying can actually harm test results and motivation if applied incautiously. On the other hand there are promising sounds about gamification as well, which confirms the current popularity of the concept. It seems that gamification is not harming or improving learning and testing in general, but it has specific effects on specific types of learning outcomes.

Finally, we made up a list of schools we are about to contact. Because despite all the interesting findings and brainstormed ideas we are able to gather; the real value out of the project cycle will never be revealed as long as we don’t get practical.

Link: https://tampere.demola.net/blogs/practical-project-insights#.WQX7v_mLSCg

IPV Carnaval & Koningsdag doen "we" hier aan Vappu:

http://inktank.fi/in-pictures-the-history-of-finnish-holiday-vappu/

Should eSports actually beSports?

Even though there are many similarities, some argue that there is still too much of a difference to place eSports in the category of traditional sports (Jenny et al., 2016). There are two major aspects in gaming that prohibit eSports to carry the name of a real sport. One is that eSports lack the physical aspect that requires gross motor skills, meaning the trained hand-eye coordination and quickness of movements necessary to thrive in games is not enough. The second aspect is not really related to the game itself, but its government and the requirement to be institutionalized. Two debatable aspects, but what good is it actually to transform the eSports towards the definitions of real sports? 

In the study of motivation for eSports, Lee and Schoenstedt (2011) found three significant factors that influence the playing of eSports. The biggest effect is actually a negative effect: the desire to acquire skills that can be translated to the real world. The specific questions were:

Playing sport video games helps me learn skills for real games
I play sport video games to build real game skills
Playing sport video games can be a good way of learning skills for real games

From this finding, it can be argued that eSport consumers actually like games because it doesn’t require the real life skills for games or sports they might lack. If games would be adapted such that the physical aspect of the game requires gross motor skills, the current group of gamers may not feel much for this and quit their engagement with the game. At the other hand, it may create a market for “hybrid athletes” that are into exploring new real skills and get attracted by virtual or augmented reality to do so. But by doing so, a new type of eSports arises and the current eSports and their players won’t fit in this category anyway.

Another need for a sport, that sounds quite strange, is the requirement of institutionalization. To me it seems nothing to do with the sport itself. Of course the standardization of rules is important to compare progress between individuals or teams, but those are already widely adopted in many eSports. Nevertheless, stricter agreements between players and organizations could be beneficial for both parties. Regarding the game of League of Legends, Bayliss (2016) argues that the acknowledgement of professional players as employees would benefit the status of the game towards a real sport. This would be beneficial to both the organization for its popularity and of course for the certainty of professional players. This is however not facilitated by giving monopoly to one organization.

There exist different competitive organizations for the current popular eSports, but the need for one big formalized organization remains the hard requirement that a real sport seems to characterize. Maybe this need for one big formalized organization is a bit old-fashioned and a more contemporary approach of multiple organizations is beneficial for the overall quality of the organizations and players. For example, the soccer institution FIFA showed a lot of notorious issues because there is so much power and money in play. There is no competing organization which forces the FIFA to be more transparent for that matter, which has a negative influence on the overall quality of the organization in soccer.

References

Bayliss, H. A. (2016). Not Just a Game: the Employment Status and Collective Bargaining Rights of Professional ESports Players. Wash. & Lee J. Civil Rts. & Soc. Just., 22, 359-411.

Lee, D., & Schoenstedt, L. J. (2011). Comparison of eSports and traditional sports consumption motives. The ICHPER-SD Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport & Dance, 6(2), 39.

Jenny, S. E., Manning, R. D., Keiper, M. C., & Olrich, T. W. (2016). Virtual (ly) Athletes: Where eSports Fit Within the Definition of “Sport”. Quest, 1-18.

Kaikki pelissä: kykkölökyy! (Ja ällö kakka)

Laat ik nog eens wat publieks van mij horen. Dit maal over de taal. De oplettende lezer kan het Fins wellicht niet volgen, maar ziet wel het verschil in de titelbewoording: se kaikki peliin heeft plaats gemaakt voor kaikki pelissä. De oplettendere lezer herinnert zich dat ik beweerde dat se kaikki peliin de Finse vertaling was voor het relativerende gezegde it’s all in the game. Dit is een mooi voorbeeld van de vervoegingen die het Fins kenmerken, want waar kaikki inderdaad all betekent en peli game, duidt de vervoeging –in aan dat iets zich naar het spel toe beweegt terwijl –ssa betekent dat iets al in het spel is. Semantisch gezien is de juiste vertaling voor “it’s all-in the game” kaikki pelissä en betekent kaikki peliin “give it all for (into) the game”.

Dit verschil leerde ik tijdens mijn eerste en nog steeds meest recente Finse clinic van het Language Centre. De vervolgsessie is er door communicatievertraging nochtans bij ingeschoten, maar gelukkig heb ik wel twee Finse dames onder de knop die aangegeven hadden interesse te hebben in Nederlands ( waarvoor ik in ruil mijn linguïstische vragen op hun af kan vuren). Maar met af en toe wat leerzame inzichten van de natives, kom je er helaas niet. Zonder woordenschatzelfstudie blijft de directe omgeving een abracadabra van lange woorden gevuld met dubbele (mede-)klinkers.

Je intuïtie is waardeloos voor het begrip van de Finse taal, hoewel sommige woorden zoals musiikki en pub nog wel enigszins te achterhalen zijn. Mijn huisgenoot moet altijd lachen om bromfiets, omdat het een fiets is die letterlijk het brommende geluid maakt. Om die reden heb ik deze post ook een fijne titel gegeven. Geen Fin zal je begrijpen omdat het geen bestaand woord is, maar intuïtief is het wel: met de correcte Finse uitspraak is dit het geluid wat een haan maakt (https://translate.google.nl/#fi/en/kykk%C3%B6l%C3%B6kyy).
De juiste vertaling voor een haan is echter kukko dat mij deed denken aan kukka dat boem betekent, of kuka, wat wie betekent. Dat klinkt overigens als koek, maar de correcte vertaling voor koek is kakku. Dat klinkt als kak en op het moment van schrijven ontdek ik dat dit dan eindelijk geen valse hoopgever is, aangezien poep in het Fins wel degelijk kakka is. Niet te verwarren met kakkerig: dat is dan weer paatoksellinen.

Een ander voorbeeld om het Fins enigszins intuïtief te laten blijken. De ä wordt uitgesproken als een mix tussen onze lange a en een korte e. In de Finse survival course werd het uitgelegd als het geluid dat een baby maakt met zijn mond wijd open. De ö wordt uitgesproken als een afkeurende uh. Als iets vies smaakt, kun je zeggen dat het ällö smaakt. De dubbele natte L in het midden geeft het woord de benodigde extra keelklanken. Zie je de weerzinwekkende baby al voor je?

Ondanks de zeer nuttige voorbeelden die samen het Finse begrip tot ällö kakka (vieze kak) brengen, blijft het een lastig verhaal. Een consistente, doch meestal onbegrijpelijke taal. Wel een mooie, die veel tussenwoorden weglaat en veel mogelijkheden voor poëzie biedt aangezien de woordvolgorde minder van belang is. De gerelateerde verwijzingen en betekenis zitten als het ware in de vervoegingen van bijbehorende woorden ingebakken. Een potentieel project met een moeilijkheidsgraad dat helaas niet past bij het vooruitzicht van vertrek op 31 mei. 

ällö olut. Zo leert men Fins kennen.

Public Play: accessible and freely interpretable, but out of the spotlight.

Xu et al. (2011) found that rules are a critical aspect for social interactions among games. Whether the players don’t like the specific rules or have to discuss what the exact meaning is, people are engaged to talk to each other and find out what adjustment or interpretation of the rule seems the most suitable for the occasion. The researchers emphasize on the need for rule interpretation in order to facilitate social interactions, which is also practically verified by the study of Tieben et al. (2011).  From these articles it can be concluded that playful interaction for public spaces as analyzed by Tieben et al. (2011) should be interesting and appealing for people, but leaving out any specific rules or restricted guidelines how to interact with the playful interactions since this creates more opportunities for discussions and personal input about the interactional meaning itself.

The importance of turn-taking as mentioned by Xu et al. (2011) may not be compatible for public play though. Taking turns might be good for obvious players which already agreed to play a game, but in public the positive effect of being in the spotlight might turn into the negative spotlight effect; people feeling watched and are afraid of embarrassment (Gilovich et al., 2000). So in public, it might suit a person better to join in continuous interaction, with a lower threshold of commitment and attention. This way there will be less anxiety which could result in avoidance of any possible negative attention by joining the interaction. Another aspect that could improve joining the interaction is a low threshold and independent interaction time; people may join or leave as they please. I think the piano stairs is a nice example where people can stay as long as they want, are not put in a spotlight but still enjoy the playful aspect that regular stairs lack.

Applied successfully, public stimulation of play can have a big impact on physical activity as well. It appears to be the case that little movements are already a big step in energy consumption, relatively to sedentary activity like watching television (Fujiki et al., 2008). Besides the regular sport activities, Fujiki et al. explored a new field of activity level that has a lower threshold than exercising but largely “outperforms” sitting: the so-called non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). Examples of these activities are walking, taking the stairs, but also less obvious activities like chewing gum.  So playful persuasive interactions only need to get people out of their chairs to be successful for that matter. This also creates an interesting field for application; places where people sit a lot like offices, airports or restaurants.

Sources:

Fujiki, Y., Kazakos, K., Puri, C., Buddharaju, P., Pavlidis, I., & Levine, J. (2008). NEAT-o-Games: blending physical activity and fun in the daily routine. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 6(2), 21.

Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: an egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one's own actions and appearance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(2), 211.

Tieben, R., Sturm, J., Bekker, T., & Schouten, B. (2014). Playful persuasion: Designing for ambient playful interactions in public spaces. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 6(4), 341-357.

Xu, Y., Barba, E., Radu, I., Gandy, M., & MacIntyre, B. (2011). Chores are fun: Understanding social play in board games for digital tabletop game design. In Think design play: The fifth international conference of the digital research association (DIGRA) (Vol. 16).

lopend pianospelen: voor jong en oud.