I don't know what I'm doing here. I'm not being useful, I'm not helping at all. I'm sitting in the Complex Library writing blog posts because I don't feel like participating. That's bad. It's not that I'm tired, that I feel sick or upset or whatever (well, maybe a bit), it's not that I have anything better to do. I'm just not into it.
I'm not into large groups of girls. I like the GUTSy Girls concept, and I'm trying to be supportive, but I'm not interested in being in the thick of it. I feel bad that I'm not, but... I have no ownership of the project. I didn't see it start up, I haven't been involved in curriculum discussions or development, I haven't really been involved at all. Sometimes just jumping in is ok. It's how I learn most new things. Sink or swim. Apparently not this time.
I'm not into running an activity. It's too complicated in the wrong way. Not really, that's just my excuse for myself. I just don't feel like taking on that sort of responsibility. I don't want to force myself to try to be friendly.
There are too many people. How can I be nice and helpful and do what I'm supposed to if I'm freaking out because I'm surrounded by so many people depending on me?
I know I sound lame and lazy, so it boils down to just Not Into It.
Instead of being on the ground, I'd like to be... Not exactly behind the curtain, although that's a fine place too. But I'd really like to be dealing with more buerocratic issues. Finding funding, bringing in projects, dealing with political issues as they come up... And I'm doing that too.
So why am I here? With the GUTSy Girls workshop? Trying to will myself to go be useful?
Maybe I just don't feel like I owe them anything. Or like I'm not learning anything I want to learn. I want to know about what's going on, but not the details. I don't really care a whole lot about how it works, I care more about how I can use it to accomplish something else. How can I use it in a theoretical framework? Not How can I literally build on it?
The event part is fine. Getting everything set up, the technical sorting out, I actually enjoy that. Dealing with emergencies, fixing things, finding power supplies at the last second, it's a rush. It's fun, I'm good at it, and it makes me feel useful.
Maybe it's that circular problem. I don't feel useful, so I don't feel like getting involved. But I'm not involved, so I don't feel useful.
The big question is What am I going to do about it? I'm not sure yet. I'm not the best at talking to the people who I should talk to, and anyway I'm not going to depend on someone else to fix my problem.
Options: (and none of them is nearly as simple as I'm making it seem)
1. Keep pretending. Stay not-useful and pretedend I'm involved.
2. Abandon it. Not altogether, I don't think that would be smart even if I Could sever myself from it. Mostly, this would mean defining my affiliations. Stay friendly, but not part if the core group. I haven't been part of the core group for quite some time (and that jab still stings), so it's not that big of a deal. It just means I have to get my head and heart around it and stop trying so hard to be involved.
3. Get more involved. Bury myself in whatever I can, makemyseklf indispensable and take ownership of the project.
4. Continue as I have been, but with a better understanding of what my role is. I'm a volunteer of the complex, not an affiliate of GUTSy Girls. I will help set up, and will deal with building emergencies, but am not involved with curriculum, teaching, etc.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Necessity Thoughts for AR Grant
Saturday, May 2, 2009
What do we need to pull off a project using AR? What are my needs? What roles will there be and what do they need?
Grant Money:
Financial Needs:
• Pay people to work. It may be only a pittance, but pay people Something for the work they do. Moreover, no way in hell I'm doing this on my own.
• Financial stability for myself
• Pocket PCs. This is what AR Gaming uses to play the game. Are there other (cheaper) options?
• Someone to do bookkeeping. I'm crap at it, and that's not going to work.
• Travel for publicity and to present findings.
• Researcher
• Office Supplies
Financial Wants:
• Stipends/Swag for Students
• Events
• Travel for (a few) students to external events
Goals:
Immediate Project Goals for Students:
• Efficacy
• Deeper Understanding
• Community Connection
• Location-based Problem Solving
• Application to Other (external) Problems
Personal Goals:
• Learn Grant Writing
• Get a feel for Financials
• Financial Stability
• Keep Busy
• Start and Run an "Official" (aka Validated) Project
People:
Roles and what they do:
• Students - Choose and Create Project
• Teachers - Recruit?
• Facilitators - Guide, Troubleshoot, Recruit...
Specific People to Keep Around (who are all busy all the time...):
• Irene
• Erik
• Marika
Grant Money:
Financial Needs:
• Pay people to work. It may be only a pittance, but pay people Something for the work they do. Moreover, no way in hell I'm doing this on my own.
• Financial stability for myself
• Pocket PCs. This is what AR Gaming uses to play the game. Are there other (cheaper) options?
• Someone to do bookkeeping. I'm crap at it, and that's not going to work.
• Travel for publicity and to present findings.
• Researcher
• Office Supplies
Financial Wants:
• Stipends/Swag for Students
• Events
• Travel for (a few) students to external events
Goals:
Immediate Project Goals for Students:
• Efficacy
• Deeper Understanding
• Community Connection
• Location-based Problem Solving
• Application to Other (external) Problems
Personal Goals:
• Learn Grant Writing
• Get a feel for Financials
• Financial Stability
• Keep Busy
• Start and Run an "Official" (aka Validated) Project
People:
Roles and what they do:
• Students - Choose and Create Project
• Teachers - Recruit?
• Facilitators - Guide, Troubleshoot, Recruit...
Specific People to Keep Around (who are all busy all the time...):
• Irene
• Erik
• Marika
Augmented Reality Gaming Grant Brain Dump
In 2005, I spent a summer using Augmented Reality to simulate the spread of Avian Flu. Sort of. It went from making a simulation of the virus itself, straight to using it as an interactive illustration for education of the masses about the virus itself. Nothing approaching the generation of creative solutions, as AR Gaming was supposed to be used.
Something that I've wanted to do since I figured out just how wrong my perception of Augmented Reality was, is do it right. Part of it was the people guiding us in our project, part of it was that we were all experienced (to some degree) with agent based modeling and thought that was what we were supposed to be doing, and a Big part of the problem was that every single person saw something different when they looked at what we were doing, but they were all using the same ambiguous words to describe it and guide us in different directions.
To do it right, several things need to happen:
1. The language needs to be simplified. It doesn't need to be dumbed down, but the buzzwords need to be taken out and replaced with descriptive language. Buzzwords are great to use in grants, or when you're trying to impress someone, but you can't expect to be clear when you're using words that the person you're talking to doesn't understand.
2. The history of the technology needs to be clear and explicit. When you've never seen anything like it before, or even if you haven't seen anything like it in this area of life, you're not likely to see the same thing as the creators, you're likely to try to use a new tool like an old tool that did the same thing. Teachers often use computers not to actively solve problems, but to facilitate rote memorization, because that's what a lot of the tools they already use are best for.
New and untainted perspectives are great to have. They are incredible to have. Flying blind is something else entirely and isn't fun. In Power Users, no one told us much about what had been done before. Maybe they were to rushed and scattered, or maybe that was an active decision. Whatever the case, it didn't work for us. The more information I have, the more useful and productive I am. While first impressions and fresh eyes are great, the tried and true ideas were once new too, and need to be considered by all parties involved. I'm trying to say something very simple here, and it's not coming out right.
3. The goal needs to be clear. AR is a bad choice if you're modeling the spread of the flu. You have a handful of agents (which are played by people or are NPCs that are given dialog, information and personalities), a handful of hot-spots and items and things like that. Each item, person or place in the game needs to be programmed in. Big game companies might have hundreds of people designing and programming their characters, items and places. On a scale appropriate to be used by middle- or high-schoolers, they're not going to be able to be as extraordinarily detailed, or in depth, let alone able to program hundreds or thousands of agents. AR is Not meant to be used like and ABM.
This means that the purpose of AR probably shouldn't be the same as an ABM. The purpose of an ABM, and really of most mathematical simulations as well, is to get a bigger technical picture of a situation. To predict how masses will move, how a disease might spread, how an ecosystem might stabilize.
AR gaming doesn't facilitate that. It's not designed for that. What it's designed for is to provide enough of a framework to facilitate the production of new, creative, innovative and often community oriented solutions to real world and location-based problems. The People Playing come up with the solutions, not the computer. It is an illustration from which to draw conclusions and solutions. And it might be an area in which to test out various solutions. It is not meant to give a birds-eye view of a given situation, but an on-the-ground feel for what's going on in a Virtual situation that mimics real-life situations.
The thought I'm having at the moment is that I want to use Erik's (Klopfer's) Augmented Reality game-builder/program-thing as the central point of a HASTAC DML grant, to be submitted in the fall (October?), and implemented either in April or June of next year. I think I've got that right...
HASTACK (Haystack), is funded by Macarthur and gives out grants to "Young Investigators" and organizations/individuals who are working with students and media in new ways. At least for this year. I'm not checking my facts atm, so I might not be getting all of this right.
The idea is to have a group (or groups) of students create AR "Games" that address real or theoretical problems that are relevant to them or to their community, in order to generate new, creative and innovative solutions for these real or theoretical problems. People (students, teachers, parents, scientists, etc.) who play these games will take on a variety of roles that may be similar to or very different from their real-life roles. They will act as they think a person in their assumed role should act, and propose solutions accordingly.
This is a unique way of problem solving. It hits many interesting points and new strategies for finding creative and innovative solutions. By stepping out of their typical roles, players of an ARG get a new perspective on what may be an old problem. They also bring in new ideas for solving both old and new problems.
The students who make the game will, if nothing else, gain a deeper and broader understanding of the situation they are addressing, as well as the different roles that people play in that situation. The end goal from a student's perspective is to gain ideas for interesting solutions to existing or theoretical situations by creating a simulation of a situation effective in giving players a view from the ground sufficient to perform their assumed roles and think of those solutions.
From the researcher/facilitator/program viewpoint, the end goal is to let students explore a situation in depth and construct a deep understanding of it through communication with other students and with players of the game.
The (Over Simplified) time line might look something like this:
1. Pick and research a situation to an extent where that situation is buildable in AR.
2. Build the situation in AR, with or without assigned roles for players built in.
3. Let a variety of people play the AR that's been developed by students, players come up with observations and possible solutions to the simulated situation.
I'm also thinking that I might enter the grant proposal, but then while I'm waiting to hear back I find a group of students, follow the time line, but apply it to the Supercomputing Challenge like I wish I could have done with the Uranium Contamination in Española group this year. If I do this, then I'll have some feel for what I'm doing, and I'll have something to show the worth of the program even before I start.
I think I'm missing the facilitator debrief, but I'm not really caring at this point.
The original thought behind all of this is Roleplay. It's a nice concept, and it's something interesting to think about (practical solutions for better use of RP in classrooms), but what exactly do you do with that? It's abstract, it's unclear, undefined, unapproachable, and just not practical. It's too ambitious, and I have no idea where I would start with that big of a topic. It isn't practical. Maybe for years and grants to come I might try something so big, but not to start with.
AR seems like a reasonable place to start. It's a technology that's already been created, and has been used with/by kids.
Something that I've wanted to do since I figured out just how wrong my perception of Augmented Reality was, is do it right. Part of it was the people guiding us in our project, part of it was that we were all experienced (to some degree) with agent based modeling and thought that was what we were supposed to be doing, and a Big part of the problem was that every single person saw something different when they looked at what we were doing, but they were all using the same ambiguous words to describe it and guide us in different directions.
To do it right, several things need to happen:
1. The language needs to be simplified. It doesn't need to be dumbed down, but the buzzwords need to be taken out and replaced with descriptive language. Buzzwords are great to use in grants, or when you're trying to impress someone, but you can't expect to be clear when you're using words that the person you're talking to doesn't understand.
2. The history of the technology needs to be clear and explicit. When you've never seen anything like it before, or even if you haven't seen anything like it in this area of life, you're not likely to see the same thing as the creators, you're likely to try to use a new tool like an old tool that did the same thing. Teachers often use computers not to actively solve problems, but to facilitate rote memorization, because that's what a lot of the tools they already use are best for.
New and untainted perspectives are great to have. They are incredible to have. Flying blind is something else entirely and isn't fun. In Power Users, no one told us much about what had been done before. Maybe they were to rushed and scattered, or maybe that was an active decision. Whatever the case, it didn't work for us. The more information I have, the more useful and productive I am. While first impressions and fresh eyes are great, the tried and true ideas were once new too, and need to be considered by all parties involved. I'm trying to say something very simple here, and it's not coming out right.
3. The goal needs to be clear. AR is a bad choice if you're modeling the spread of the flu. You have a handful of agents (which are played by people or are NPCs that are given dialog, information and personalities), a handful of hot-spots and items and things like that. Each item, person or place in the game needs to be programmed in. Big game companies might have hundreds of people designing and programming their characters, items and places. On a scale appropriate to be used by middle- or high-schoolers, they're not going to be able to be as extraordinarily detailed, or in depth, let alone able to program hundreds or thousands of agents. AR is Not meant to be used like and ABM.
This means that the purpose of AR probably shouldn't be the same as an ABM. The purpose of an ABM, and really of most mathematical simulations as well, is to get a bigger technical picture of a situation. To predict how masses will move, how a disease might spread, how an ecosystem might stabilize.
AR gaming doesn't facilitate that. It's not designed for that. What it's designed for is to provide enough of a framework to facilitate the production of new, creative, innovative and often community oriented solutions to real world and location-based problems. The People Playing come up with the solutions, not the computer. It is an illustration from which to draw conclusions and solutions. And it might be an area in which to test out various solutions. It is not meant to give a birds-eye view of a given situation, but an on-the-ground feel for what's going on in a Virtual situation that mimics real-life situations.
The thought I'm having at the moment is that I want to use Erik's (Klopfer's) Augmented Reality game-builder/program-thing as the central point of a HASTAC DML grant, to be submitted in the fall (October?), and implemented either in April or June of next year. I think I've got that right...
HASTACK (Haystack), is funded by Macarthur and gives out grants to "Young Investigators" and organizations/individuals who are working with students and media in new ways. At least for this year. I'm not checking my facts atm, so I might not be getting all of this right.
The idea is to have a group (or groups) of students create AR "Games" that address real or theoretical problems that are relevant to them or to their community, in order to generate new, creative and innovative solutions for these real or theoretical problems. People (students, teachers, parents, scientists, etc.) who play these games will take on a variety of roles that may be similar to or very different from their real-life roles. They will act as they think a person in their assumed role should act, and propose solutions accordingly.
This is a unique way of problem solving. It hits many interesting points and new strategies for finding creative and innovative solutions. By stepping out of their typical roles, players of an ARG get a new perspective on what may be an old problem. They also bring in new ideas for solving both old and new problems.
The students who make the game will, if nothing else, gain a deeper and broader understanding of the situation they are addressing, as well as the different roles that people play in that situation. The end goal from a student's perspective is to gain ideas for interesting solutions to existing or theoretical situations by creating a simulation of a situation effective in giving players a view from the ground sufficient to perform their assumed roles and think of those solutions.
From the researcher/facilitator/program viewpoint, the end goal is to let students explore a situation in depth and construct a deep understanding of it through communication with other students and with players of the game.
The (Over Simplified) time line might look something like this:
1. Pick and research a situation to an extent where that situation is buildable in AR.
2. Build the situation in AR, with or without assigned roles for players built in.
3. Let a variety of people play the AR that's been developed by students, players come up with observations and possible solutions to the simulated situation.
I'm also thinking that I might enter the grant proposal, but then while I'm waiting to hear back I find a group of students, follow the time line, but apply it to the Supercomputing Challenge like I wish I could have done with the Uranium Contamination in Española group this year. If I do this, then I'll have some feel for what I'm doing, and I'll have something to show the worth of the program even before I start.
I think I'm missing the facilitator debrief, but I'm not really caring at this point.
The original thought behind all of this is Roleplay. It's a nice concept, and it's something interesting to think about (practical solutions for better use of RP in classrooms), but what exactly do you do with that? It's abstract, it's unclear, undefined, unapproachable, and just not practical. It's too ambitious, and I have no idea where I would start with that big of a topic. It isn't practical. Maybe for years and grants to come I might try something so big, but not to start with.
AR seems like a reasonable place to start. It's a technology that's already been created, and has been used with/by kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
