It's a virtual world (?)

[MikeF]

Hi Marc. This presentation seems to add to the discussion of seminars that we were discussing yesterday. Regardless of the medium (case study from a book, movie, or video game), this type of interaction is an excellent training tool.

Couple of thoughts:

1. Class size. My personal opinion is that one should not exceed ten students. 6-8 is probably the preferred number in order to maximize discussion from the entire group.

2. Facilitator training. The instructor becomes a facilitator, and he/she must be given specialized training on how to execute in order to maximize the time. I once subbed as a guest facilitator for a "wicked problems" class while my thesis advisor was away. Afterwards, I was struck by how much planning and preparation was required in order to properly conduct 1 x one hour class.

v/r

Mike

[marct]

Good points, Mike, thanks....

The sessions are just starting up again, so I'll post more later....

Cheers,

Marc

[Billy Ruffian]

hi Marc!

This is pretty interesting. I lack the proper background and context to comment, I was wondering if you could clear 2 points up for me.

First: I appreciate how you make the distinction between a group and stand alone training tool. What I am wondering is, do you envision a learning environment where everyone is logged on to a simulation from different locales or are they all in the same room with the facilitator?

I'm only asking because I've seen people "play" (bitch n' moan seems to be more accurate) simulations like WoW with a teamspeak microphone system built in and I've seen them play much more successfully when they're all in the same room.

Physical presence, I've observed, tends to be more effective as people are able to intuitively know whose 'turn' it is to speak. Generally, the level of discourse also tends to be higher as participants are less likely to troll each other and generally poison the allegedly team-focused activities. Physical cues are important.

Secondly: By participating in an group simulation to test 'real-world' events, do you envision that the facilitator actively monitors/runs the simulation, periodically introducing new, unexpected challenges or even impossible scenarios? Or perhaps is this training style more suited to pitting two moderated groups in opposition to one another while a moderator essentially introduces variable ala a D&D style Dungeon Master?

I was also interested why you selected WoW as an example and not something like America's Army (is it too tactically centred to be of value as a teaching tool?)

Additionally, I've also observed that no matter how good the AI, nothing can really can compare to a living opponent as AI tends to lack the ability to act illogically and employ ruses IMO. Except maybe DEFCON, but that's not exactly what I would call a realistic Sim.

I tend to be a mechanics minded gamer myself. I might be missing a key piece of your argument here due to my own blinkers.

[marct]

Hi Billy,

Excellent points.

On your first one, I think we need to draw a spectrum from in-class, face-to-face with a facilitator all the way through to an individual downloading their own. The trick, to my mind, is how we can leverage technologies to mitigate the distance from the f2f + facilitator. Could we use online forums? Could we use real-time gaming? Honestly, this is an issue that goes well beyond the military and has some pretty serious implications for any form of education. BTW, any ideas you have would be appreciated - especially since I know where you work and what you're studying !

The second point is more tricky. The "final product" I would like to see would be a full blown, highly interactive virtual world type scenario - sort of like the gaming machines in Melissa Scott's The Game Beyond if you ever read it. We're not there yet, but what I saw was certainly impressive within its limits. As with most changes in teaching technology, i think it would be useful to start with the version they have now and gradually introduce more interaction and possibilities.

The problem with introducing radical changes in teaching technology is that you have to teach both the teachers how to use it and the students how to learn from it. The version they have now is a straight exaptation of older case study methods that they use right now, so there's not much of a learning curve. However, the more flexibility that's added into the system, the steeper the learning curve (especially for the teachers!).

On your last couple of points, and I think they are all related, let me just say that I selected WoW mainly because it is full of real people. The best "map" of a person is a person, so ideally, you would end up not using AIs at all - just people. That was one of the big strengths of D&D when you get right down to it. As long as you had a good DM, you could have a great game.

Cheers,

Marc

[Ron Humphrey]

Would be to coordinate with various institutions internationally and using the basic premise behind the training tool stuff have real live people actually make a living doing exactly that in a 3d environment of some sort.

WoW and other simply serve as proof of principle for can it be done. The trick would be buy-in from those you'd require to actually make it happen.

[John T. Fishel]

Case Method and Case Studies. The latter are research tools that take a particular case from its beginning to its end. Case Method teaching, by contrast, takes the case from its start point to the point of decision and demands that the students make that decision. Typically, it then provides data on what was actually done and the consequences of the action taken.
Frankly, a good asynchronous discussion lends itself well to Case method teaching. The instructor in such a situation is really quite naturally in a facilitator role. I can also see it being used relatively easily in a synchronous mode. And, setteing the stage by downloading some sort of video presentation would be an easy fit. So, all in all, I see it as a promising tool with all the usual caveats about doing it well.

Cheers

JohnT

[Steve Blair]

On your last couple of points, and I think they are all related, let me just say that I selected WoW mainly because it is full of real people. The best "map" of a person is a person, so ideally, you would end up not using AIs at all - just people. That was one of the big strengths of D&D when you get right down to it. As long as you had a good DM, you could have a great game.

Cheers,

Marc

Quite so, especially the table top RPG comment. I tend to prefer the idea of free play, moderated techniques...with the additional variation that actions by the players can modify their environment (within limits). That's why I always preferred the MUD/MUSH or tabletop setting to a WoW-type setting. Tabletop is of course the easiest to modify on the go, while a MUD can shift quickly due to its text-based nature. But once the engine becomes the end and not the means (which is sort of how I see things like WoW), you lose that flexibility.

[Rex Brynen]

Quite so, especially the table top RPG comment. I tend to prefer the idea of free play, moderated techniques...with the additional variation that actions by the players can modify their environment (within limits). That's why I always preferred the MUD/MUSH or tabletop setting to a WoW-type setting. Tabletop is of course the easiest to modify on the go, while a MUD can shift quickly due to its text-based nature. But once the engine becomes the end and not the means (which is sort of how I see things like WoW), you lose that flexibility.

I'm also a big fan of human-moderated RPG approaches to training, whether pencil-and-paper or computer-facilitated. However, the challenge from a training perspective is developing a skilled cadre of moderators, and then getting them to where the folks who need training are. You can't cut corners on this, or the process might be worse than useless--as anyone who has ever played D&D with a lame DM can attest.

By contrast, a software package offers the attraction of something that can be implemented in many places at the same time, therefore providing standardized training in volume. The problem is what you then lose in the process (the flexibility and inventiveness of a human moderator, and the danger of building unseen assumptions into the software that players can't challenge, and may even not be aware of.)

[Steve Blair]

I'm also a big fan of human-moderated RPG approaches to training, whether pencil-and-paper or computer-facilitated. However, the challenge from a training perspective is developing a skilled cadre of moderators, and then getting them to where the folks who need training are. You can't cut corners on this, or the process might be worse than useless--as anyone who has ever played D&D with a lame DM can attest.

By contrast, a software package offers the attraction of something that can be implemented in many places at the same time, therefore providing standardized training in volume. The problem is what you then lose in the process (the flexibility and inventiveness of a human moderator, and the danger of building unseen assumptions into the software that players can't challenge, and may even not be aware of.)

I understand that completely. Seen many lame DMs in my day, but also fallen victim to many lame software packages with good graphics. That's why I think the best compromise might be a software package (similar to the MUSH/MUD style) that allows a good core of skilled moderators to reach a large number of trainees. That way you can tweek the mechanics but still keep the human core and variable in place that's really needed (IMO) for this stuff to be of lasting value.