PMOG
Passively Multiplayer or PMOG
The PMOG Research paper
A while back I heard about Justin Hall’s idea for a Passively Multiplayer Online Game that would track your web surfing and give you points. An idea based off of the leveling system used in MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games).
It has occurred to me that much of what has been established as regular practice in e-learning could easily be tracked with such “myware” (spyware that consicoulsy tracks the data your computer generates for personal benefit) and later reported to the teacher in terms of stats and points.
Currently, PMOG only tracks the sites you frequent. Passively, you don’t have to do anything to “play” but go about your normal online lives. However “quests” can be created so that you may actively choose to explore what others have. Further improvements to the game are in development, such as tracking how often/much you contribute to peer production sites like Wikipedia, Flickr, YouTube, etc…
Imagine being able to track a student’s involvement in class by the number of 
“quests” they complete… quests that the educator, or better yet, the students create. These quests can be based on research, blogging, editing or gathering information, collaboration, or communication.
Also, a fictitious element has been added that divides players (by the data of course) into a certain archetype of internet personality. See pic at left for more info.
There is still a lot of work to be done in the way the system works (it doesn’t actually track how often you blog, post picks, or edit wiki’s at this time). But I see great potential here for:
- engaging the student through competition in rank
- identification of study habits (good or bad)
- easily tracking what materials are most attractive vs. beneficial
- and what Hall calls “Literacy for Personal Data Control” or actively tracking one’s own digital paper trail
As the younger generation continues to dissolve the idea of “privacy”, I see this type of software evolving into a ‘paying’ game, where players are gladly rewarded with currency for completing quests. Many online survey sites already pay (check out opinions2cash.com) and even Google asks to track your web history while you are logged in. By the time we start actively using this in education, our students may already be “playing”.
PMOG
Passively Multiplayer or PMOG
The PMOG Research paper
A while back I heard about Justin Hall’s idea for a Passively Multiplayer Online Game that would track your web surfing and give you points. An idea based off of the leveling system used in MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games).
It has occurred to me that much of what has been established as regular practice in e-learning could easily be tracked with such “myware” (spyware that consicoulsy tracks the data your computer generates for personal benefit) and later reported to the teacher in terms of stats and points.
Currently, PMOG only tracks the sites you frequent. Passively, you don’t have to do anything to “play” but go about your normal online lives. However “quests” can be created so that you may actively choose to explore what others have. Further improvements to the game are in development, such as tracking how often/much you contribute to peer production sites like Wikipedia, Flickr, YouTube, etc…
Imagine being able to track a student’s involvement in class by the number of “quests” they complete… quests that the educator, or better yet, the students create. These quests can be based on research, blogging, editing or gathering information, collaboration, or communication.
Also, a fictitious element has been added that divides players (by the data of course) into a certain archetype of internet personality. See pic at left for more info.
There is still a lot of work to be done in the way the system works (it doesn’t actually track how often you blog, post picks, or edit wiki’s at this time). But I see great potential here for:
- engaging the student through competition in rank
- identification of study habits (good or bad)
- easily tracking what materials are most attractive vs. beneficial
- and what Hall calls “Literacy for Personal Data Control” or actively tracking one’s own digital paper trail
As the younger generation continues to dissolve the idea of “privacy”, I see this type of software evolving into a ‘paying’ game, where players are gladly rewarded with currency for completing quests. Many online survey sites already pay (check out opinions2cash.com) and even Google asks to track your web history while you are logged in. By the time we start actively using this in education, our students may already be “playing”.
PMOG
Passively Multiplayer or PMOG
The PMOG Research paper
A while back I heard about Justin Hall’s idea for a Passively Multiplayer Online Game that would track your web surfing and give you points. An idea based off of the leveling system used in MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games).
It has occurred to me that much of what has been established as regular practice in e-learning could easily be tracked with such “myware” (spyware that consicoulsy tracks the data your computer generates for personal benefit) and later reported to the teacher in terms of stats and points.
Currently, PMOG only tracks the sites you frequent. Passively, you don’t have to do anything to “play” but go about your normal online lives. However “quests” can be created so that you may actively choose to explore what others have. Further improvements to the game are in development, such as tracking how often/much you contribute to peer production sites like Wikipedia, Flickr, YouTube, etc…
Imagine being able to track a student’s involvement in class by the number of “quests” they complete… quests that the educator, or better yet, the students create. These quests can be based on research, blogging, editing or gathering information, collaboration, or communication.
Also, a fictitious element has been added that divides players (by the data of course) into a certain archetype of internet personality. See pic at left for more info.
There is still a lot of work to be done in the way the system works (it doesn’t actually track how often you blog, post picks, or edit wiki’s at this time). But I see great potential here for:
- engaging the student through competition in rank
- identification of study habits (good or bad)
- easily tracking what materials are most attractive vs. beneficial
- and what Hall calls “Literacy for Personal Data Control” or actively tracking one’s own digital paper trail
As the younger generation continues to dissolve the idea of “privacy”, I see this type of software evolving into a ‘paying’ game, where players are gladly rewarded with currency for completing quests. Many online survey sites already pay (check out opinions2cash.com) and even Google asks to track your web history while you are logged in. By the time we start actively using this in education, our students may already be “playing”.
IDEAL Podcast #1 – Interview with Anthony Fontana
Interview with (me) Anthony Fontana, about art, technology, online teaching, and the classroom of the future. Anthony Fontana is an Instructor for the School of Art.
Scroll half way down.
A recent interview I had with the IDEAL Distance Learning Center at Bowling Green State University.
IDEAL Podcast #1 – Interview with Anthony Fontana
Interview with (me) Anthony Fontana, about art, technology, online teaching, and the classroom of the future. Anthony Fontana is an Instructor for the School of Art.
Scroll half way down.
A recent interview I had with the IDEAL Distance Learning Center at Bowling Green State University.
IDEAL Podcast #1 – Interview with Anthony Fontana
Interview with (me) Anthony Fontana, about art, technology, online teaching, and the classroom of the future. Anthony Fontana is an Instructor for the School of Art.
Scroll half way down.
A recent interview I had with the IDEAL Distance Learning Center at Bowling Green State University.
Don’t Be Naive, Native, or Immigrant
After attending the FATE, Foundations in Art: Theory and Education conference this last week I returned home with four resounding words in my head: Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Marc Prensky’s idea (found here) was repeated at many of the session presentations as a standard for what is happening in today’s classrooms. However, there were many, including myself, who found these terms to be dated, negative, and off the mark.
Examining Prensky’s original paper, you’ll find he was speaking the message of the Polychronic Classroom long before I was:
“instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.”
So remember as you read this that, above all, Prensky is on our team.
However, the term “Digital Native” should actually be “Polychronic“. In his 2001 paper, he clearly defines a digital native as a polychronic person. Polychrons have been traditionally defined by culture (Asia, Middle East) and are now being defined (or created) by technology. There is no reason though that any American above the age of 30 could not be a Polychron. And this is where Prensky’s idea of digital foreigners is wrong.
Likewise, today’s students that have never worked with a computer (or much technology) before reaching college, are more likely to be Monochrons; or the same type of personality that Pensky describes as digital immigrant. They have grown up reading, writing, thinking logically, etc…
I suggest we work to change these terms from words like “native” or “immigrant”, which carry negative connotations of being foreign, naive, unaware, and not in control, to terms more akin to what they describe: Polychronic or Monochronic.
After all, aren’t we all pioneers and conquerors in some way.? Aren’t we driving this boat? Sure, some of my students don’t know a world other than the new digital millennium but, that does not mean they will understand the iPhone better than I.
Don’t Be Naive, Native, or Immigrant
After attending the FATE, Foundations in Art: Theory and Education conference this last week I returned home with four resounding words in my head: Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Marc Prensky’s idea (found here) was repeated at many of the session presentations as a standard for what is happening in today’s classrooms. However, there were many, including myself, who found these terms to be dated, negative, and off the mark.
Examining Prensky’s original paper, you’ll find he was speaking the message of the Polychronic Classroom long before I was:
“instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.”
So remember as you read this that, above all, Prensky is on our team.
However, the term “Digital Native” should actually be “Polychronic”. In his 2001 paper, he clearly defines a digital native as a polychronic person. Polychrons have been traditionally defined by culture (Asia, Middle East) and are now being defined (or created) by technology. There is no reason though that any American above the age of 30 could not be a Polychron. And this is where Prensky’s idea of digital foreigners is wrong.
Likewise, today’s students that have never worked with a computer (or much technology) before reaching college, are more likely to be Monochrons; or the same type of personality that Pensky describes as digital immigrant. They have grown up reading, writing, thinking logically, etc…
I suggest we work to change these terms from words like “native” or “immigrant”, which carry negative connotations of being foreign, naive, unaware, and not in control, to terms more akin to what they describe: Polychronic or Monochronic.
After all, aren’t we all pioneers and conquerors in some way.? Aren’t we driving this boat? Sure, some of my students don’t know a world other than the new digital millennium but, that does not mean they will understand the iPhone better than I.
Don’t Be Naive, Native, or Immigrant
After attending the FATE, Foundations in Art: Theory and Education conference this last week I returned home with four resounding words in my head: Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Marc Prensky’s idea (found here) was repeated at many of the session presentations as a standard for what is happening in today’s classrooms. However, there were many, including myself, who found these terms to be dated, negative, and off the mark.
Examining Prensky’s original paper, you’ll find he was speaking the message of the Polychronic Classroom long before I was:
“instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.”
So remember as you read this that, above all, Prensky is on our team.
However, the term “Digital Native” should actually be “Polychronic“. In his 2001 paper, he clearly defines a digital native as a polychronic person. Polychrons have been traditionally defined by culture (Asia, Middle East) and are now being defined (or created) by technology. There is no reason though that any American above the age of 30 could not be a Polychron. And this is where Prensky’s idea of digital foreigners is wrong.
Likewise, today’s students that have never worked with a computer (or much technology) before reaching college, are more likely to be Monochrons; or the same type of personality that Pensky describes as digital immigrant. They have grown up reading, writing, thinking logically, etc…
I suggest we work to change these terms from words like “native” or “immigrant”, which carry negative connotations of being foreign, naive, unaware, and not in control, to terms more akin to what they describe: Polychronic or Monochronic.
After all, aren’t we all pioneers and conquerors in some way.? Aren’t we driving this boat? Sure, some of my students don’t know a world other than the new digital millennium but, that does not mean they will understand the iPhone better than I.
A good definition
I have also changed the definition off to the side of this blog to include: “that optimize learning outcomes by providing channels of content transfer most familiar to the student.”
