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.