We should be using gamification in education!

Methods and means of supporting critical thinking in education
User avatar
Coveny
Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Coveny » Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:58 am

If you aren’t familiar with gamification it is where you turn learning into a game. This can anything from leveling up as you pass courses to the content being in the form of a game. You may have seen some of the children’s games where balloons fall that have math problems and when the child gets the math correct it pops the balloon. Gamifying learning can get much more complex though, and it has shown many superior qualities to regular learning systems.

Gamification help with motivation:
“Some of the best examples of gamification are exergames that encourage exercise by turning physical activity into a game.”
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10 ... 6813480996

Fortune 500 companies use games to engage employees:
“The list is practically endless. Google, Microsoft, Cisco, Deloitte, Sun Microsystems, IBM, L’Oreal, Canon, Lexus, FedEx, UPS, Wells Fargo and countless others have embraced games to make workers more satisfied, better-trained and focused on their jobs, as well as to improve products and services.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbe ... 5459032f3f

Gamification has proven its ability to motivate and engage and our education system in America really needs the help. When you look at USA ranking in comparison with the other developed countries of the world we continue to fall further and further behind:
“One of the biggest cross-national tests is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which every three years measures reading ability, math and science literacy and other key skills among 15-year-olds in dozens of developed and developing countries. The most recent PISA results, from 2015, placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science.”
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... h-science/

From a very good article which gives several examples of gamification as well as some of the drawbacks and roadblocks gamification can meet:
“The combination of an increased focus on student engagement and the possibilities provided by digital learning make gamification a powerful tool for educators.” and “The principles of gamification have been fully embraced by a school in two cases, at Quest to Learn (Q2L) in New York City and CICS ChicagoQuest.”
https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/a ... 0000a7ddb6

If we want to reverse our negative trend of falling further and further behind on the global educational comparison charts we need a radical overhaul of our education system here in America. Digital is the obvious answer because not only does it low costs to update material and provide customized education it also increases motivation and engagement with the students. If America wants to take back the lead we need to start now.
ForDebating.com is now in beta.

We have 1v1 and 2v2 debates working and will have up to 16-man tourneys working soon.


Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fordebating
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWAd2N ... 4lsJZjr6GQ

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9032
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Poodle » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:42 am

Why should America have all the fun?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3842
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:19 am

Plenty of research shows that we learn best when the least depends on the outcome: during fight or flight, there is no time to do anything but the tried&true. When there is little on the line, we can experiment with methods and observe results.
Plenty of School systems do their utmost to do the exact opposite of this.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Coveny
Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Coveny » Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:45 pm

Poodle wrote:Why should America have all the fun?


Ya well I guess it could be used elsewhere I just live in America...
ForDebating.com is now in beta.

We have 1v1 and 2v2 debates working and will have up to 16-man tourneys working soon.


Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fordebating
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWAd2N ... 4lsJZjr6GQ

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:06 pm

Part of the problem with the education system in the US is that all students are treated exactly the same. No efforts are made to encourage the abilities of the "fast learners," and no efforts are made to provide extra help to the "slow learners." The most the "fast learners" can hope for is the existence of AP classes, while the "slow learners" are allowed to move forward whether they've mastered the material or not (peer promotion). This results in the "fast learners" being bored to tears, and the "slow learners" not learning what they should.

Another issue that is ignored is the circadian rhythms of children at various ages. Teenagers become alert much later in the morning than young children, yet they're forced to get up at an ungodly, cow-milking hour for school, while elementary school begins two hours later in the day. You can't force a person to counter their circadian, as we've learned from studies on shift work.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Coveny
Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Coveny » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:33 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:Part of the problem with the education system in the US is that all students are treated exactly the same. No efforts are made to encourage the abilities of the "fast learners," and no efforts are made to provide extra help to the "slow learners." The most the "fast learners" can hope for is the existence of AP classes, while the "slow learners" are allowed to move forward whether they've mastered the material or not (peer promotion). This results in the "fast learners" being bored to tears, and the "slow learners" not learning what they should.


Another perk of gamification is that it's individualized to the learner.
ForDebating.com is now in beta.

We have 1v1 and 2v2 debates working and will have up to 16-man tourneys working soon.


Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fordebating
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWAd2N ... 4lsJZjr6GQ

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13169
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:42 pm

I went to a Jesuit International School for the Fifth Grade because I was flunking out of regular school. It was known for demanding results. Homework every night, tests and report cards with class standing every week. I started the year at about 52 out of 52. By the end of the year....worked up to #3 or #4.

Then, Ma & Pa moved back to the USA....and I started flunking out again.

Was that a game? If so, what was it?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:36 pm

Coveny wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Part of the problem with the education system in the US is that all students are treated exactly the same. No efforts are made to encourage the abilities of the "fast learners," and no efforts are made to provide extra help to the "slow learners." The most the "fast learners" can hope for is the existence of AP classes, while the "slow learners" are allowed to move forward whether they've mastered the material or not (peer promotion). This results in the "fast learners" being bored to tears, and the "slow learners" not learning what they should.
Another perk of gamification is that it's individualized to the learner.
True. You can continue to level up even if others in the class aren't. I like the idea, personally, since I'm a lifelong gamer. :mrgreen:

It's certainly a better idea than how my eyes initially read the thread title: "We should be using gammafication in education!" Because making kids into superheroes will solve all of the problems! :lol:
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 8636
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Aztexan » Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:42 pm

Nah, Tidepod Man would vanquish them all in the first issue.
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
Coveny
Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Coveny » Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:31 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote: True. You can continue to level up even if others in the class aren't. I like the idea, personally, since I'm a lifelong gamer. :mrgreen:

It's certainly a better idea than how my eyes initially read the thread title: "We should be using gammafication in education!" Because making kids into superheroes will solve all of the problems! :lol:


The whole gamma and radioactive bite thing always seems so un-plausible to me. I like the born with it (mutants), the environment (superman), and learned (batman, Dr Strange) angle much more. I want no part of radiation, and that {!#%@} will turn you dead not into a superhero...
ForDebating.com is now in beta.

We have 1v1 and 2v2 debates working and will have up to 16-man tourneys working soon.


Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fordebating
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWAd2N ... 4lsJZjr6GQ

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13169
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:37 pm

Mutants are born with genetic changes......most likely caused by radiation changing the nucleotides of their dna. The environment can't make a Superman.....its just a placeholder for magic. Learned is where the admirable is...even though its entirely script driven.

What is a Hero?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Coveny
Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Coveny » Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:00 pm

Mutant does NOT mean most likely radiation changed (even though we eat a bunch of plants that were radiated to create mutations)

Superman is just an example, but the basis is that you are born with these super abilities but they only manifest in a certain environment. (on a different planet, in a different dimension, etc)

I completely agree on learned > all, but disagree that it's script driven. The really good ones are the ones that require self learning and experimentation.

A hero is someone who put themselves in harms way, when they don't have to, to protect/save others.
ForDebating.com is now in beta.

We have 1v1 and 2v2 debates working and will have up to 16-man tourneys working soon.


Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fordebating
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWAd2N ... 4lsJZjr6GQ

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13169
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:08 pm

Mutations: you are correct. I overstated. thats my contrary gene acting up again. Its my superhuman power.

You call it manifest but a different gravity field (IIRC) would not cause the super powers to emerge...according to any know theoretical process..............so, its magic. The very definition of science we don't understand.

Required?====Yes........by the script. the difference between good and bad comics, movies, and so forth.

Do you have a favorite debate or one that surprised you at all? You should..eventually if not now.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Coveny
Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Coveny » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:24 pm

So if you were born on a heavy gravity planet, then came to earth and had super strength that would be "magic"? (and seriously it's all magic if you put that definition on it)

Favorite... no, I have favorite topics though. I've been surprised on a few.
ForDebating.com is now in beta.

We have 1v1 and 2v2 debates working and will have up to 16-man tourneys working soon.


Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fordebating
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWAd2N ... 4lsJZjr6GQ

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13169
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:49 am

Coveny wrote:So if you were born on a heavy gravity planet, then came to earth and had super strength that would be "magic"? (and seriously it's all magic if you put that definition on it)

Favorite... no, I have favorite topics though. I've been surprised on a few.


Well, since gravity has no connection to super powers that I am aware of.........yes, it would be magic...... as in: unexplainable. What we "know" is that a creature from a heavy gravity planet would be more "stout" than one from a lighter gravity environment....so perhaps stronger in some way but offishly slow...... absent some other evolutionary path not known by us. But in the main, for instance: why would less or more gravity cause X-ray Vision? Or lack of penetrability?? Or weakness when close to original planet debris?............... Makes no sense.

Well........I won't pull teeth. Being surprised.............is always a delight.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Coveny
Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Coveny » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:54 am

If you were born and grew up on a high gravity planet you would have superhuman strength on this planet. Last time I checked Jessica Jones is considered to have superpowers...
ForDebating.com is now in beta.

We have 1v1 and 2v2 debates working and will have up to 16-man tourneys working soon.


Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fordebating
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWAd2N ... 4lsJZjr6GQ

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13169
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:03 am

Coveny wrote:If you were born and grew up on a high gravity planet you would have superhuman strength on this planet. Last time I checked Jessica Jones is considered to have superpowers...

Well................its a matter of degree? Perhaps at small increases of gravity you could have a small increase in strength...but at much higher gravities...the structures we know for life tend to break down, like whales on the beach. Life in high gravity might be restricted to life buoyed by water....again...just like the whales.

I suppose, it all depends on just what you are assuming happens in high gravity? I assume such life would be low and squat compared to life in lower gravity.....not good for rapid action in lower gravity.

there was a show on tv about imagined life on other planets. All I remember is the low gravity planets where animals could float around as if filled with helium. They must have had a high gravity situation......but I don't remember it if they did.

I thought JJ lost her super powers and became a detective?..............Not that it mattes.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Coveny
Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Coveny » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:41 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Coveny wrote:If you were born and grew up on a high gravity planet you would have superhuman strength on this planet. Last time I checked Jessica Jones is considered to have superpowers...

Well................its a matter of degree? Perhaps at small increases of gravity you could have a small increase in strength...but at much higher gravities...the structures we know for life tend to break down, like whales on the beach. Life in high gravity might be restricted to life buoyed by water....again...just like the whales.

I suppose, it all depends on just what you are assuming happens in high gravity? I assume such life would be low and squat compared to life in lower gravity.....not good for rapid action in lower gravity.

there was a show on tv about imagined life on other planets. All I remember is the low gravity planets where animals could float around as if filled with helium. They must have had a high gravity situation......but I don't remember it if they did.

I thought JJ lost her super powers and became a detective?..............Not that it mattes.


Obviously it would be to whatever degree provided the most benefit with the least amount of negatives. I mean even a 30% increase would be very impressive.

Nope JJ is both a detective and a mutant. Though the teaser indicates that she was "created" from a near death experience like Deadpool.
ForDebating.com is now in beta.

We have 1v1 and 2v2 debates working and will have up to 16-man tourneys working soon.


Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fordebating
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWAd2N ... 4lsJZjr6GQ

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13169
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:47 am

Yes....30% would be quite impressive. But, not Superman.

I don't take you "Nope" as responsive to the direction the point was going. "Nope"...... to what????

Jessica Jones (TV Series 2015– ) - IMDb
www.imdb.com/title/tt2357547/

Action · Following the tragic end of her brief superhero career, Jessica Jones tries to rebuild her life as a private investigator, dealing with cases involving people with remarkable abilities in New York City.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Coveny
Poster
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Coveny » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:59 am

Superman was an example. I said super powers. All that means is super human. So 30% would qualify, but that's not the point.

Nope JJ didn't lose her super strength, she's just no longer a part of the defenders, and has moved back into anonymity. She is still superhuman just not a superhero.
ForDebating.com is now in beta.

We have 1v1 and 2v2 debates working and will have up to 16-man tourneys working soon.


Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fordebating
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWAd2N ... 4lsJZjr6GQ

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:53 pm

My superpower appears to be derailing threads with humorous comments. All in all, not that useful IRL. I'd rather fly. :mrgreen:
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11008
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:00 pm

Aztexan wrote:Nah, Tidepod Man would vanquish them all in the first issue.


Phooey! Tidepod man vanquished Filthyrags Man, after that he was all washed up.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11008
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:05 pm

. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:12 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:Back on topic:

How to design games for teaching.
One of my graphic design assignments in college (circa 1984, interestingly) was to create a board game. I based it off the song "Foreign Policy" by the hardcore band FEAR, then named it "Pushbutton Warfare" after my brother's hardcore band. Gameplay was somewhat like Monopoly, except the goal was to destroy all other countries using nuclear weapons. Hardly anyone was amused, sadly. It's a damn shame that some people don't share my twisted sense of humor. :P
Foreign Policy by FEAR
Eliminate the incompetents!
Differences don't exist in harmony!
Survival is superiority.
We don't need no hands across the sea!

We've got...
Foreign policy [x3]

The lines are drawn!
Establish the new order!
Suspect everyone
Know your enemies! Know your enemies!

We've got...
Foreign Policy [x3]

Hatred is purity!
Weakness is disease!
Where we bury you
It's manifest destiny!

We've got...
Foreign Policy [x3]
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13169
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:42 pm

Differences don't exist in harmony!


Good line.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:32 am

Sadly, after years of commenting on society in this manner, FEAR's lead singer, Lee Ving, turned out to be rabidly right wing. I don't get it. You may have seen him in movies; he's had several bit parts. He was Mr. Boddy in Clue, and had minor roles in both Flashdance and Streets of Fire.
Image
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13169
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:09 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Differences don't exist in harmony!


Good line.

Thanks for the thanks. It is a good line. Not true.............but a good line. Like everything else, its not the "fact" of a difference.....but what you do with that fact. things happen, we interpret them and usually act accordingly. Aka: its not what happens................BUT HOW WE ACT in response. People tend to think that some "fact" justifies what follows. It never does, as there are 15 in between decisions at play.

But the statement is a door knocker as it stands. The start of a journey...........

Just caught the tail end of "Eric Clapton, Life in 12 Bars" on HBO...the caption stressing his music.......but the video is actually about his yearning for true love. I gotta say it: film notes that Eric and what's her name, George Harrisons Wifey at the time eventually spent the night together and G. Harrison came to collect her and Eric said he was in love with GH's wife. GH said to (Honestly, I just don't remember her name.....not trying to be a pig, I just am) his wifey...."Who you going home with, him or me?" and she answered "Of course, I'm going home with you George." ///// Fine and dandy....but then about two minutes later, the narration in the words of Eric says that what's her name went home with George """""""BECAUSE SHE WAS TOTALLY FAITHFUL TO HIM.""""""""" Huh? film diverts then into the music. We need another film as it goes to the boundary of "love" and tends to back off and flip back to the music. Much is implied.....nothing is delved into. Not that the squeamish side of hooman behavior is all that interesting.......except.....in this case it kinda is...... Great Musicians as everyone involved actually are. Always: more to be told. but "normally" including with Gods, rock or otherwise, screwing your husbands best friend is not being faithful to him.

This is what cross examination or follow up[ questions is all about..................
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3842
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:43 am

There are a number of awesome apps (in a sea of rubbish) that teach things in sneaky ways.
One of my favorites is DragonBox, which teaches you how to solve equations without you realizing it before it's too late!
Buwahhah!
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:15 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Differences don't exist in harmony!
Thanks for the thanks. It is a good line. Not true.............but a good line.
True in a Huxleyan or Orwellian way, though.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Like everything else, its not the "fact" of a difference.....but what you do with that fact. things happen, we interpret them and usually act accordingly. Aka: its not what happens................BUT HOW WE ACT in response. People tend to think that some "fact" justifies what follows. It never does, as there are 15 in between decisions at play.
I agree. People also tend to think that acting our their emotions is justified by the preceding fact. It's not, though. The emotion itself is certainly valid; you're entitled to feel however you feel.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:10 pm

Anyway, back on topic...

When my daughter was a toddler, back in the days of diskettes, I shopped at a place that offered shareware and freeware. I bought her several teaching games, which she loved. (I didn't rely on them, however, but spent time with her at the 3' x 2' chalkboard I also bought, as well as making use of workbooks and flashcards. She learned how to read before kindergarten, and was a bit baffled that most of her friends couldn't yet read.)

Naturally, I also bought games for myself. :mrgreen: That's how I was introduced to Duke Nukem (back when it was a side-scroller) and Jill of the Jungle, among others.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

The abnormal thinker
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:53 pm

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby The abnormal thinker » Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:50 am

I agree that gamification can be useful for education in general.. But what about using gamification itself to teach critical thinking?

To teach its fundamentals via a game with a feedback system that makes you "lose" when your argument includes a logical fallacy (for example)?

I think that one of the biggest difficulties with teaching this thought structure, unlike teaching other, non-controversial topics, is that it's easy for the student to think, "hey, says who that doing that in an argument is wrong? You can't prove that!"

Games make it much easier to understand what makes logical fallacies what they are (wrong logical inferences), although I'm not sure if this can apply to scientific skepticism as well, because when a student loses at a game because he didn't check a scientific article's "peer reviews", it's not obvious what's wrong in that..

I know of 2 "arguing" video games which do exactly what I described above, both of which are free and available online, one is called "Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher" (https://www.kongregate.com/games/chiefw ... hilosopher) and the other is simply called "Arguing Game" (https://www.gamedev.net/projects/146-arguing-game), and they've got some interesting mechanics. Those games have feedback systems that make it easy to understand when the player's choice presents a good use of critical thinking or not. One of them focuses on philosophical arguments, while the other one has both that and scientific arguments, and in both of them, good use of critical thinking somehow rewards gives the player a certain "reward", while the opposite "punishes" him.

The bottom line is, I think those games can be very useful to teach the fundamentals of critical thinking in a much more effective and easier (and even fun) way rather than giving presentations or posting articles on the matter.

BTW I also saw another (free & online) debate game called "argument champion" (http://www.argumentchampion.com/) where you form arguments by choosing words from "word clouds", but I don't think it is anyhow related to critical thinking.. But maybe I'm wrong?

Maybe I should start a new thread about that, because I haven't seen anyone on this forum ever talk about that, and I can easily 1000+ words on how each of those games work and discuss them endlessly and it'll spam this thread lol. What do you think?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:30 pm

The abnormal thinker wrote:I agree that gamification can be useful for education in general.. But what about using gamification itself to teach critical thinking?
I love this idea! You can't successfully play my favorite game genre—first person adventure—without the ability to think critically, because you must observe your surroundings, discern clues, integrate that information, and decide where and how it will be useful.

The abnormal thinker wrote:To teach its fundamentals via a game with a feedback system that makes you "lose" when your argument includes a logical fallacy (for example)?
I would totally play such a game!

The abnormal thinker wrote:I think that one of the biggest difficulties with teaching this thought structure, unlike teaching other, non-controversial topics, is that it's easy for the student to think, "hey, says who that doing that in an argument is wrong? You can't prove that!"
I'm sure we've all run into this reaction when debating adults. :mrgreen:

The abnormal thinker wrote:Games make it much easier to understand what makes logical fallacies what they are (wrong logical inferences), although I'm not sure if this can apply to scientific skepticism as well, because when a student loses at a game because he didn't check a scientific article's "peer reviews", it's not obvious what's wrong in that..
True, but if the pertinent data were presented in-game, the student would have the necessary information to formulate his argument.

The abnormal thinker wrote:I know of 2 "arguing" video games which do exactly what I described above, both of which are free and available online, one is called "Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher" (https://www.kongregate.com/games/chiefw ... hilosopher) and the other is simply called "Arguing Game" (https://www.gamedev.net/projects/146-arguing-game), and they've got some interesting mechanics. Those games have feedback systems that make it easy to understand when the player's choice presents a good use of critical thinking or not. One of them focuses on philosophical arguments, while the other one has both that and scientific arguments, and in both of them, good use of critical thinking somehow rewards gives the player a certain "reward", while the opposite "punishes" him.
Thanks for the links! I played a bit of the first one, and it does a nice job of presenting the elements of an argument and how and when to use them.

The abnormal thinker wrote:Maybe I should start a new thread about that, because I haven't seen anyone on this forum ever talk about that, and I can easily 1000+ words on how each of those games work and discuss them endlessly and it'll spam this thread lol. What do you think?
Makes sense. I started a gaming thread in The Nexus, but since yours would be specifically about games that promote critical thinking, it makes sense to have a separate thread.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11008
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby OlegTheBatty » Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:01 pm

The abnormal thinker wrote:I agree that gamification can be useful for education in general.. But what about using gamification itself to teach critical thinking?


Nikki wrote:I love this idea!


Your wish is my command
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

The abnormal thinker
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:53 pm

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby The abnormal thinker » Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:00 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:I agree that gamification can be useful for education in general.. But what about using gamification itself to teach critical thinking?
I love this idea! You can't successfully play my favorite game genre—first person adventure—without the ability to think critically, because you must observe your surroundings, discern clues, integrate that information, and decide where and how it will be useful.


Thanks. It can help if you can bring a specific example of a use of critical thinking in those games, too, because we're talking about teaching critical thinking via games, and I'm curious to see how those "adventure" games can be related to that.

The abnormal thinker wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:To teach its fundamentals via a game with a feedback system that makes you "lose" when your argument includes a logical fallacy (for example)?
I would totally play such a game!


Thanks again.

The abnormal thinker wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:I think that one of the biggest difficulties with teaching this thought structure, unlike teaching other, non-controversial topics, is that it's easy for the student to think, "hey, says who that doing that in an argument is wrong? You can't prove that!"
I'm sure we've all run into this reaction when debating adults. :mrgreen:


Me too..

The abnormal thinker wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Games make it much easier to understand what makes logical fallacies what they are (wrong logical inferences), although I'm not sure if this can apply to scientific skepticism as well, because when a student loses at a game because he didn't check a scientific article's "peer reviews", it's not obvious what's wrong in that..
True, but if the pertinent data were presented in-game, the student would have the necessary information to formulate his argument.


Well it depends. Generally, by being given access to the information the student needs, he can win the game.

But I'm not sure if this fits well for a game, because it seems it'll almost inevitably demand him to read some research and examine its data, and even then, it's unlikely he can doubt it by showing a logical fallacy in the logic the researchers used. That's pretty "heavy" for a game.

That's why I think that to teach scientific skepticism, we'd better off putting lots of "rtheorical" fallacies in those kind of arguments (Pathos, lotus, and so on), which are all Informal fallacies. Those fallacies can appear in politics, as well as when you're trying to win a job interview.

Thought I guess it's possible to try to build some sort of "Reliability rating" to a research, based on the standards that skeptics judge them (peer reviews, external and internal validity, vagueness..), and give each "standard" a rating that shows how important it is out of the whole picture. But then again it's just our own standards and none has to agree with them, that's exactly the problem I was addressing.

BTW, the "arguing game" takes an interesting approach in this regard - in its "scientific" arguments, it actually bases them with some real researches (and even offers the player to go read the research's abstract by searching for it in Google scholar :lol: ), but each of those arguments is designed so that the player would not have to read even the abstract in order to win. But the standards of "reliability" of the arguments there are as the game decides, which I think, would be better with this "Reliability rating".

The abnormal thinker wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:I know of 2 "arguing" video games which do exactly what I described above, both of which are free and available online, one is called "Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher" (https://www.kongregate.com/games/chiefw ... hilosopher) and the other is simply called "Arguing Game" (https://www.gamedev.net/projects/146-arguing-game), and they've got some interesting mechanics. Those games have feedback systems that make it easy to understand when the player's choice presents a good use of critical thinking or not. One of them focuses on philosophical arguments, while the other one has both that and scientific arguments, and in both of them, good use of critical thinking somehow rewards gives the player a certain "reward", while the opposite "punishes" him.
Thanks for the links! I played a bit of the first one, and it does a nice job of presenting the elements of an argument and how and when to use them.


No problem, and yeah, I tend to agree. Although that game (as well as the other I linked to) focuses on how to analyze an argument critically, not how to form one.

It's better that way, too. The structure of forming arguments is much more complex than the structure you can use to doubt any "part" of those arguments, which is probably why the developers of both games never let their players introduce their own arguments. Seriously, imagine what it would be like to play a game which allows you to type your own arguments and then analyze them critically for you. I don't think it'll work well..

Not only that, but keeping the game only about analyzing arguments, also allows to think (and try) some more creative concepts.

For example, if you know the card game "Yugioh" (I used to play it like 15 years ago), we can use an analogy to games like it to teach critical thinking to the younger age demography. It's a turn-based game where you can summon 1 "monster card" each turn, and as many "trap cards" as you like. Monster cards can attack other monsters and the enemy player, while trap cards can be used in reponse to monster attacks.

So it's possible to easily modify that, so that monster cards will be "arguments cards" (like this), with 1 argument in each of those, and "trap cards" will be logical fallacies (like this) that can be uncovered in "arguments cards" when they "attack".

We could make the use of critical thinking seem hillarious that way..

The abnormal thinker wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Maybe I should start a new thread about that, because I haven't seen anyone on this forum ever talk about that, and I can easily 1000+ words on how each of those games work and discuss them endlessly and it'll Spam this thread lol. What do you think?
Makes sense. I started a gaming thread in The Nexus, but since yours would be specifically about games that promote critical thinking, it makes sense to have a separate thread.


Ok thanks, thought I'm actually still worried to do that, because generally, when I write posts with links to games and other free media, some people seem to get angry and think I'm just advertising these (unless it's in a forum that's specifically about them..). Not to mention the topic was about the benefit gamification in general, not specifically to teach critical thinking.

Another thing that matters is how much you care about this topic, because if you just care enough about it to reply to me once with a 100 word-long reply, I don't see the point in starting a new thread, since none will bother to read it anyway. If you're interested in starting a deep discussion about the matter (which I will do gladly), maybe we'd better off talking about this in private messages, without annoying the rest of the forum, and then maybe start a thread if we have any new, interesting insights.

I'm also thinking to send it some mod, so that he can confirm to me the thread will not be removed. I'm wondering if it's better to discuss it in here, or in a separate thread, or open a thread that addresses the general issue only, I don't know what will be best.

OlegTheBatty wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:I agree that gamification can be useful for education in general.. But what about using gamification itself to teach critical thinking?


Nikki wrote:I love this idea!


Your wish is my command


Thanks. It seems this game it also requires registration, enables players to write their own arguments and enter them to a database, and figure the correct way to contradict an argument (or figure the rhetorical method it uses?). Or am I already wrong in what I just said? I'll look at it again when I have more time.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:02 pm

The abnormal thinker wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:I agree that gamification can be useful for education in general.. But what about using gamification itself to teach critical thinking?
I love this idea! You can't successfully play my favorite game genre—first person adventure—without the ability to think critically, because you must observe your surroundings, discern clues, integrate that information, and decide where and how it will be useful.
Thanks. It can help if you can bring a specific example of a use of critical thinking in those games, too, because we're talking about teaching critical thinking via games, and I'm curious to see how those "adventure" games can be related to that.
Well, it's not as if they specifically teach the principles of logic like Socrates Jones, but more like you're required to constantly make deductions based on clues you observe, since most adventure games don't hold your hand with hint buttons, puzzle instructions, and the like. A few examples:
• The Ravenhearst story arc in the Mystery Case Files series is full of Rube Goldberg-style puzzles with no instructions. You must figure out how the various parts of the puzzle interact in order to solve it. All the information you need is within the puzzle; you just have to be observant enough to notice the clues, then deduce how and where the clues are used. For example, in the image below, there's a cage containing a housefly and a Venus flytrap, so it seems likely you must somehow free the fly and guide it to the plant...but there's a mechanism that needs to be solved to open the cage, so the puzzle is both interconnected and progressive.
Spoiler:
Image

• In Myst, one level's puzzles are all sound-based. First, you must navigate to five locations where there are distinctive sounds and activate the microphone there. Next, at a sixth location, you must figure out a device that homes in on the five sounds. When you're successful, the device will generate a coordinates. Both the sounds and the coordinates are combined to unlock a musical combination lock. All of this, including the fact that sound is crucial, must be deduced, since there are no instructions.
Spoiler:
Image

• In The Eyes of Ara, there's a multi-step puzzle. First, you must find three display monitors and deduce which of the image codes belongs to each by observing your surroundings. When all three are correct, it will unlock a box in a different location which contains several lock pieces. Correctly placing them unlocks the clues required to solve a complicated visual puzzle. So, your observation skills and ability to make connections is crucial. Below is the visual puzzle, which you can't begin to solve until you've found the clues...which you can't do until you use the lock pieces...which you can't do until you solve the display monitors.
Spoiler:
Image

The abnormal thinker wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:Games make it much easier to understand what makes logical fallacies what they are (wrong logical inferences), although I'm not sure if this can apply to scientific skepticism as well, because when a student loses at a game because he didn't check a scientific article's "peer reviews", it's not obvious what's wrong in that..
True, but if the pertinent data were presented in-game, the student would have the necessary information to formulate his argument.
Well it depends. Generally, by being given access to the information the student needs, he can win the game.

But I'm not sure if this fits well for a game, because it seems it'll almost inevitably demand him to read some research and examine its data, and even then, it's unlikely he can doubt it by showing a logical fallacy in the logic the researchers used. That's pretty "heavy" for a game.
You're right. It's probably better to just deal with teaching critical thinking, since it's a skill that translates to any endeavor, and certainly to scientific skepticism.

The abnormal thinker wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:I know of 2 "arguing" video games which do exactly what I described above, both of which are free and available online, one is called "Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher" (https://www.kongregate.com/games/chiefw ... hilosopher) and the other is simply called "Arguing Game" (https://www.gamedev.net/projects/146-arguing-game), and they've got some interesting mechanics. Those games have feedback systems that make it easy to understand when the player's choice presents a good use of critical thinking or not. One of them focuses on philosophical arguments, while the other one has both that and scientific arguments, and in both of them, good use of critical thinking somehow rewards gives the player a certain "reward", while the opposite "punishes" him.
Thanks for the links! I played a bit of the first one, and it does a nice job of presenting the elements of an argument and how and when to use them.
No problem, and yeah, I tend to agree. Although that game (as well as the other I linked to) focuses on how to analyze an argument critically, not how to form one.

It's better that way, too. The structure of forming arguments is much more complex than the structure you can use to doubt any "part" of those arguments, which is probably why the developers of both games never let their players introduce their own arguments. Seriously, imagine what it would be like to play a game which allows you to type your own arguments and then analyze them critically for you. I don't think it'll work well..
I agree that approach would be much more difficult, especially for the programmers. I don't think it would be possible to program to account for individual input. However, the game could offer a selection of arguments from which to choose, with one selection being "correct" and the others being object lessons.

The abnormal thinker wrote:Not only that, but keeping the game only about analyzing arguments, also allows to think (and try) some more creative concepts.

For example, if you know the card game "Yugioh" (I used to play it like 15 years ago), we can use an analogy to games like it to teach critical thinking to the younger age demography. It's a turn-based game where you can summon 1 "monster card" each turn, and as many "trap cards" as you like. Monster cards can attack other monsters and the enemy player, while trap cards can be used in reponse to monster attacks.

So it's possible to easily modify that, so that monster cards will be "arguments cards" (like this), with 1 argument in each of those, and "trap cards" will be logical fallacies (like this) that can be uncovered in "arguments cards" when they "attack".
This is a great idea! I'll bet that emotion regulation, which is essential to critical thinking, could also be taught this way.

For example, given an emotion-inducing situation, choose the best response.
Situation: Your friend is supposed to pick you up after work, but he's 30 minutes late. What do you do?
a. Get angry that your friend is being thoughtlessly late when you're exhausted and hungry.
b. Start to worry that something has happened to your friend, like a car accident.
c. Sit back and relax; he's probably stuck in traffic.

Obviously, the first two choices consist of jumping to unsupported conclusions, and working yourself up for no reason. For a, this person is your friend; why would he be malicious? For b, you're imagining the worst case scenario without a shred of evidence. C is the most likely reason for the delay, so there's no point in suffering unnecessary negative emotions. Come to think of it, emotion regulation requires critical thinking skills as much as critical thinking requires emotion regulation.

The abnormal thinker wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:Maybe I should start a new thread about that, because I haven't seen anyone on this forum ever talk about that, and I can easily 1000+ words on how each of those games work and discuss them endlessly and it'll Spam this thread lol. What do you think?
Makes sense. I started a gaming thread in The Nexus, but since yours would be specifically about games that promote critical thinking, it makes sense to have a separate thread.
Ok thanks, thought I'm actually still worried to do that, because generally, when I write posts with links to games and other free media, some people seem to get angry and think I'm just advertising these (unless it's in a forum that's specifically about them..). Not to mention the topic was about the benefit gamification in general, not specifically to teach critical thinking.
No worries! I've posted links to both free and not free games, briefly discussing the nature of the game and recommending it. As long as you're not profiting from it, it's not spamming. (Even that might be ok, with permission, but I can't say for sure.)

The abnormal thinker wrote:Another thing that matters is how much you care about this topic, because if you just care enough about it to reply to me once with a 100 word-long reply, I don't see the point in starting a new thread, since none will bother to read it anyway. If you're interested in starting a deep discussion about the matter (which I will do gladly), maybe we'd better off talking about this in private messages, without annoying the rest of the forum, and then maybe start a thread if we have any new, interesting insights.
I've lost count of how many threads I've started that got a few replies, then got buried. :mrgreen: If I'm interested enough, I periodically revive them with a new post. Sometimes, it's just lack of time that causes people to ignore threads. I mean, I generally have 20+ notifications on any given day, not to mention reading new threads. However, if you want to work together in PMs to formulate a thread, I'm more than willing. I've been a diehard gamer since Zork (talk about needing critical thinking skills!).

The abnormal thinker wrote:I'm also thinking to send it some mod, so that he can confirm to me the thread will not be removed. I'm wondering if it's better to discuss it in here, or in a separate thread, or open a thread that addresses the general issue only, I don't know what will be best.
We're pretty laid back here. Your threads don't need to be approved before you post them. People who post in violation of the rules have their threads deleted or locked rather quickly, and nothing we're talking about is a violation of the rules.

The abnormal thinker wrote:Your wish is my command
Dude! That looks amazing. I've bookmarked it for when I have time.
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."—Marcello Truzzi

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."—Christopher Hitchens

The abnormal thinker
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:53 pm

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby The abnormal thinker » Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:08 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:I agree that gamification can be useful for education in general.. But what about using gamification itself to teach critical thinking?
I love this idea! You can't successfully play my favorite game genre—first person adventure—without the ability to think critically, because you must observe your surroundings, discern clues, integrate that information, and decide where and how it will be useful.
Thanks. It can help if you can bring a specific example of a use of critical thinking in those games, too, because we're talking about teaching critical thinking via games, and I'm curious to see how those "adventure" games can be related to that.
Well, it's not as if they specifically teach the principles of logic like Socrates Jones, but more like you're required to constantly make deductions based on clues you observe, since most adventure games don't hold your hand with hint buttons, puzzle instructions, and the like. A few examples:
• The Ravenhearst story arc in the Mystery Case Files series is full of Rube Goldberg-style puzzles with no instructions. You must figure out how the various parts of the puzzle interact in order to solve it. All the information you need is within the puzzle; you just have to be observant enough to notice the clues, then deduce how and where the clues are used. For example, in the image below, there's a cage containing a housefly and a Venus flytrap, so it seems likely you must somehow free the fly and guide it to the plant...but there's a mechanism that needs to be solved to open the cage, so the puzzle is both interconnected and progressive.
Spoiler:
Image

• In Myst, one level's puzzles are all sound-based. First, you must navigate to five locations where there are distinctive sounds and activate the microphone there. Next, at a sixth location, you must figure out a device that homes in on the five sounds. When you're successful, the device will generate a coordinates. Both the sounds and the coordinates are combined to unlock a musical combination lock. All of this, including the fact that sound is crucial, must be deduced, since there are no instructions.
Spoiler:
Image

• In The Eyes of Ara, there's a multi-step puzzle. First, you must find three display monitors and deduce which of the image codes belongs to each by observing your surroundings. When all three are correct, it will unlock a box in a different location which contains several lock pieces. Correctly placing them unlocks the clues required to solve a complicated visual puzzle. So, your observation skills and ability to make connections is crucial. Below is the visual puzzle, which you can't begin to solve until you've found the clues...which you can't do until you use the lock pieces...which you can't do until you solve the display monitors.
Spoiler:
Image


I see. It seems that the "type" of critical thinking you're talking about here, is recognizing the right "cause and effect" - what causes what, and what is the result of what. So in each of those games, by assuming the existence of causality the player can figure out what he needs to do.

And that thought structure is a core part of the scientific method - testing the connections between the things the hypothesis is about - but it's obviously NOT the only part - there's also peer reviews, publishing, estimating possible bias, and so on.

So, it can help understand SOME of the critical thinking used in the scientific method, but not more.
But, it's indeed a "part" of critical thinking that's missing in the games I linked to, so I guess it can be usefull too. I'll remember this.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:Games make it much easier to understand what makes logical fallacies what they are (wrong logical inferences), although I'm not sure if this can apply to scientific skepticism as well, because when a student loses at a game because he didn't check a scientific article's "peer reviews", it's not obvious what's wrong in that..
True, but if the pertinent data were presented in-game, the student would have the necessary information to formulate his argument.
Well it depends. Generally, by being given access to the information the student needs, he can win the game.

But I'm not sure if this fits well for a game, because it seems it'll almost inevitably demand him to read some research and examine its data, and even then, it's unlikely he can doubt it by showing a logical fallacy in the logic the researchers used. That's pretty "heavy" for a game.
You're right. It's probably better to just deal with teaching critical thinking, since it's a skill that translates to any endeavor, and certainly to scientific skepticism.


Yes indeed. Focusing on the basics of critical thinking allows it to be relevant to pretty much anything, which is why it's the best approach, unless we want to teach it to a specific group that may justify a "bias" depending on their background (if it's a bunch of teens in a tech school, for example, there's no problem with focusing on scientific skepticism only).

Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:I know of 2 "arguing" video games which do exactly what I described above, both of which are free and available online, one is called "Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher" (https://www.kongregate.com/games/chiefw ... hilosopher) and the other is simply called "Arguing Game" (https://www.gamedev.net/projects/146-arguing-game), and they've got some interesting mechanics. Those games have feedback systems that make it easy to understand when the player's choice presents a good use of critical thinking or not. One of them focuses on philosophical arguments, while the other one has both that and scientific arguments, and in both of them, good use of critical thinking somehow rewards gives the player a certain "reward", while the opposite "punishes" him.
Thanks for the links! I played a bit of the first one, and it does a nice job of presenting the elements of an argument and how and when to use them.
No problem, and yeah, I tend to agree. Although that game (as well as the other I linked to) focuses on how to analyze an argument critically, not how to form one.

It's better that way, too. The structure of forming arguments is much more complex than the structure you can use to doubt any "part" of those arguments, which is probably why the developers of both games never let their players introduce their own arguments. Seriously, imagine what it would be like to play a game which allows you to type your own arguments and then analyze them critically for you. I don't think it'll work well..
I agree that approach would be much more difficult, especially for the programmers. I don't think it would be possible to program to account for individual input. However, the game could offer a selection of arguments from which to choose, with one selection being "correct" and the others being object lessons.


Yes, that's technically just as simple as writing an interactive story, along with a feedback for each argument for selection.

By the way, in case you didn't notice - both of the games I linked to already do this, each in their own way -

In Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher, you start the game with no arguments available to choose from, but with the ability to question several important core things of any argument (clarification, back up, relevance between the premises and the conclusion). As you progress in the game, you slowly build an "argument bag" with arguments you can use shorty afterwards to counter the opponent's arguments. Sometimes arguments you "received" 5 stages before can help you win the current stage you're in, too. Choose a good argument and the bar (that is right with the offered responses) increases, choose a wrong one and the bar decreases.

And in the "Arguing game", in the "normal game" mode, the player always, at any part of any stage, must choose between 2-5 statements(responses) that are offered to him to choose from, some of which are arguments, but most are just asking for clarafication or questioning relevance, but they can still contain informal logical fallacies - and the points are groups of logical fallacies (like this one), which means that every time you choose a "bad" response, you get "negative points" in accordance with the response's fallacies, and "positive" points if your response is good. Also, every time you finish a stage, you can go to the stage at the "hardcore mode", which means trying to list all logical fallacies that exist in every possible response that was offered in the "normal game" mode in that same stage, maybe that's relevant too.

A possible better approach for this, in my opinion, would be to split the arguments offered to the player into deductive and inductive arguments, since it makes it much easier to understand the arguments themselves. If not, we can split them into "philosophical" and "scientific arguments" - arguments that have Falsifiability are scientific, and those that don't are philosophical (abstract).

Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:Not only that, but keeping the game only about analyzing arguments, also allows to think (and try) some more creative concepts.

For example, if you know the card game "Yugioh" (I used to play it like 15 years ago), we can use an analogy to games like it to teach critical thinking to the younger age demography. It's a turn-based game where you can summon 1 "monster card" each turn, and as many "trap cards" as you like. Monster cards can attack other monsters and the enemy player, while trap cards can be used in reponse to monster attacks.

So it's possible to easily modify that, so that monster cards will be "arguments cards" (like this), with 1 argument in each of those, and "trap cards" will be logical fallacies (like this) that can be uncovered in "arguments cards" when they "attack".
This is a great idea! I'll bet that emotion regulation, which is essential to critical thinking, could also be taught this way.

For example, given an emotion-inducing situation, choose the best response.
Situation: Your friend is supposed to pick you up after work, but he's 30 minutes late. What do you do?
a. Get angry that your friend is being thoughtlessly late when you're exhausted and hungry.
b. Start to worry that something has happened to your friend, like a car accident.
c. Sit back and relax; he's probably stuck in traffic.

Obviously, the first two choices consist of jumping to unsupported conclusions, and working yourself up for no reason. For a, this person is your friend; why would he be malicious? For b, you're imagining the worst case scenario without a shred of evidence. C is the most likely reason for the delay, so there's no point in suffering unnecessary negative emotions. Come to think of it, emotion regulation requires critical thinking skills as much as critical thinking requires emotion regulation.


Hmm, interesting analogy. This "emotion regulation" appears to fit the treatment known as CBT - changing an interpretation to a more "healthy" one. Guess critical thinking can, in this way, be taught in many different contexts. I'll try to think of one which interests me especially.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:Maybe I should start a new thread about that, because I haven't seen anyone on this forum ever talk about that, and I can easily 1000+ words on how each of those games work and discuss them endlessly and it'll Spam this thread lol. What do you think?
Makes sense. I started a gaming thread in The Nexus, but since yours would be specifically about games that promote critical thinking, it makes sense to have a separate thread.
Ok thanks, thought I'm actually still worried to do that, because generally, when I write posts with links to games and other free media, some people seem to get angry and think I'm just advertising these (unless it's in a forum that's specifically about them..). Not to mention the topic was about the benefit gamification in general, not specifically to teach critical thinking.
No worries! I've posted links to both free and not free games, briefly discussing the nature of the game and recommending it. As long as you're not profiting from it, it's not spamming. (Even that might be ok, with permission, but I can't say for sure.)


Ok thanks, I guess I should not be too pressured about it..

Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:Another thing that matters is how much you care about this topic, because if you just care enough about it to reply to me once with a 100 word-long reply, I don't see the point in starting a new thread, since none will bother to read it anyway. If you're interested in starting a deep discussion about the matter (which I will do gladly), maybe we'd better off talking about this in private messages, without annoying the rest of the forum, and then maybe start a thread if we have any new, interesting insights.
I've lost count of how many threads I've started that got a few replies, then got buried. :mrgreen: If I'm interested enough, I periodically revive them with a new post. Sometimes, it's just lack of time that causes people to ignore threads. I mean, I generally have 20+ notifications on any given day, not to mention reading new threads. However, if you want to work together in PMs to formulate a thread, I'm more than willing. I've been a diehard gamer since Zork (talk about needing critical thinking skills!).


Ok fine, But I want to discuss it a bit more here and probably PM you as well before I do that, because I think we need to focus the discussion a little, I can see that there are infinite aspects to analyze it from, and if we don't focus we can continue this discussion until the rest of eternity, and may not gain that much from it.

We've already discussed the games from how hard they are, and how to "apply" them in different contexts, and how to add scientific arguments in them, why criticizing arguments >>> forming arguments in games, and how adventure games also help in this regard.

I have yet to decide what I want to focus about, but before that, tell me: is there a specific aspect (or a couple aspects at most) about critical thinking games YOU are especially interested in discussing, out of the above aspects and others? Or are you like me right now, who would like to discuss from countless aspects and don't know what to focus on?

Nikki Nyx wrote:
The abnormal thinker wrote:I'm also thinking to send it some mod, so that he can confirm to me the thread will not be removed. I'm wondering if it's better to discuss it in here, or in a separate thread, or open a thread that addresses the general issue only, I don't know what will be best.
We're pretty laid back here. Your threads don't need to be approved before you post them. People who post in violation of the rules have their threads deleted or locked rather quickly, and nothing we're talking about is a violation of the rules.


OK fine, like I said, I won't be too pressured about this.. Thanks.

The abnormal thinker
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:53 pm

Re: We should be using gamification in education!

Postby The abnormal thinker » Sun May 06, 2018 4:34 pm

Sorry for the bump, but I must say there is a course in Coursera about gamification (https://www.coursera.org/learn/gamification/home/welcome), taught by Kevin Werbach.

Although I studies most of the course but failed to finish it (because some of the later lessons are so boring, lol), I'd recommend anyone interested in the topic to take it.

It discusses various cognitive principles that attract people to games and can be applied in non-game contexts: the "Skinner Box"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber), internal and external motivation (and how games can "trigger" both of those), rewards (rewards in games generally tends to be immediate and tangible), feedback, the role of stories in games, flow, what is "fun", and more.

I may start discussions on some of those points, because unfortunately Kevin didn't bother to add much references to scientific research and books to support his claims through the entire course (almost no scientific research and only several books).


Return to “Education”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests