from Terry Haik
The consent of how best to determine what the trainer understands is not simple – if for another reason, then understanding himself is not simple.
Thehe The difference between gamification and the game -based training Important: The first uses the mechanics to encourage commitment, while the latter uses video games as major sources of study materials or cognitive actions) is one answer.
By incorporating various achievements into activities and evaluations, the progress of training can be broken endlessly. These systems could respond to the unique ways and capabilities of the learners and will serve as a mechanics to encourage – instead of a carrot stick, there are hundreds. And not just carrots, but every fruit and vegetable that can be presented.
But video games have even more to offer official training systems. Much more. Although what is actually a video game is changing with emerging technologies, these digital playgrounds are usually iterative in these digital playgrounds and requires players to demonstrate skills in certain fields.
Yes I can do it this Before you go to thatS
See also 50 ways to empower students in a connected world
How games have mastered cognitive engagement
There are tropes in video game mechanics that players almost universally dislike, including “training” sessions where players have to prove on a video game that they can perform a basic function before moving forward. Turn left, turn right, jump, pick up an object, open a card, etc.
Improper cut scenes that do not have meaningful or inseparable to the game itself are also not fun.
Lack of choosing a player – games where the developers lead you once and offer the appearance of choice without offering any note? It is not “engaging”.
A game that is too difficult or too easy? It does not engage at all.
A game in which the mechanics themselves do not engage – the actions and behavior that players can actually control – is not fun because what you do is not engaging. You just manage the functions of a predetermined system that does not need you, is not created for you, does not require a specific genius or talent that you may have, and appearance and sounds and plays equally for any player, regardless of their abilities, background, goals, interests, etc. Sounds familiar?
Although something like a basic proof does not sound bad in theory, it has fun because it destroys its own sense of pace, interest and curiosity of players. This is a strict reminder that you play a game, that the game controls and you are only for the ride, which also dissolves the immersion.
Then not much different than the school.
However, most game designers have learned. Mandatory training sessions and even unprecedented cut scenes – interruptions in the game that force players to watch videos that may or may not be an integral part of the game – they are rarer than two years ago. They have also developed unlocking. Performing tasks – as insignificant as opening a treasure chest or as significant as the level completion – new “things” are unlocked: new areas, new weapons, new characters, new abilities, etc.
These mechanics serve to promote the player, because in order to move forward, the objects must be checked – in a way that is not only seen but also the awards play, experimentation and curiosity. And unlike the aforementioned compulsory training, they are gradual, periodic, often voluntary and reward players immediately.
Climb a mountain or kill an enemy of a robot? Bam. A glossy new element such as a reward, the level of unlocking, the percentage of finishing the game flashing on the screen. Instant feedback and visible progress.
Learning
So, what does this have to do with school? Many, actually.
Although there is no “school”, there are common models that reward observance, depth and accuracy, while steeringting students, abstraction and play. What would happen if the students’ commitment was required to unlock the next task in a project based environment? In the light of the students ‘commitment, demonstrating irregular progress of progress – especially in secondary school – retention of students’ commitment, because they are struggling with an idea, makes no sense.
So video games don’t do this.
While the player “fights” – ie, it builds a skill with a skill or idea – game designers leave the player to continue playing. To learn. Have modeled skills. To be inspired. Game designers have learned to return the game of players so that they can unlock their own experiences – and inspire the designers of the game to load with their ideas.
See also 10 strategies to get the training to feel more soon as a game
Doing them against to leave them
In essence, the question here is personalized training. Allow users to continue at their own pace, play with ideas and content, and win different achievements beyond these teachers insist. Learning is a lot of game. It has rules, prizes and must be amended to meet the goals and natural gifts of the learner.
Video games were forced to change from their linear, closed approach, as they are essentially small businesses and in any business that does not “make money”, there is no guarantee for future games.
But for the learning environment, the potential loss is much more.
And so should at least Match this type of evolution by placing the students first and adapting the game to them. One way to do this is to offer different paths through content to unlock and offer equally diverse prizes for the mentioned unlock.
10 Strategies for engaging students who empower students
1. Design lessons that “cannot work” without students’ engagement.
2. They are experiencing a design attempt so that students see visible progress on a daily basis.
3. Clarify the goals and offer students’ engagement many ways to achieve them.
4. Give the students the tools for designing and building something you haven’t even considered/you would never think of.
5. Design with a metement in the mind: A skill upgrade the next and students need all this to succeed.
6. Use project based training where students design the whole brain attack process to publication.
7. Give students to make troops and training resources that they can customize or “upgrade” to meet their approach to learning.
8. Make learning both jointly and competitively.
9. Consider training challenges and education based in places where students solve important problems for them in communities they look at.
10. Grinize your classroom in a way that focuses not on standards, data or “skills” but personal progress meaningful for a student.
These approaches, though unclear, can help you get a jump on the engagement of your classroom training, which in parallel with the things that conquer them so completely on all these digital screens.
