Monthly Archives: February 2013

Gamification

Posted on February 15, 2013 | 5 comments

I casually mentioned to my husband tonight that I needed a quest log for my course work. I play a couple of video games (mostly Skyrim and World of Warcraft) and I love completing tasks and earning achievements—I thrive on it. Just one more quest… I can’t say I have the same enthusiasm for the numerous readings, assignments, and various other components of my classes (did I really just admit that on my blog for one of these said classes?).

He told me that I should look up gamification of homework. Apparently, gamification is a real thing and has been since 2002 when the term was coined by Nick Pelling.

Gamification is the use of game-thinking and game mechanics in a non-game context in order to engage users and solve problems. Gamification is used in applications and processes to improve user engagement, ROI, data quality, timeliness, and learning (Gamification, 2013).

Seth Priebatsch, head of SCVNGR, gave an interesting TED Talk about the game layer back in 2010. He suggests that the last decade was all about the social. There is still a lot to explore, but the basic framework is there. The social layer is about connections. This next decade is about the game layer. The game layer is about influence.

He also talked about four elements of gaming:

  1. The appointment: having to do something at a predefined time, in a predefined place to get a reward(example: happy hour)
  2. Influence and status (example: badges)
  3. Progression dynamic (being only 75% of a full person in LinkedIn)
  4. Communal discoveries: everyone works together to discover something (Digg)

This is something I want to come back to and explore with more of a library professional perspective. I think there are merits to gamifying the library and other organizations and it is worth exploring. For now, excuse me while I go gamify my homework.

Read more on Gamification:

Gamification (2013). In Wikipedia Retrieved February 16, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification

5 Comments

Posted in LIBR 559M, Social Media

Tagged , , ,

Critical Making

Posted on February 6, 2013 | 1 comment

I am currently taking INF 1240H Research Methods at the University of Toronto iSchool. One of the components of the course is a group research (b)log. In our groups we discuss the weekly readings and topics as well as hash out our individual research projects. Emphasis is also put on engaging with each other through comments or new blog posts. It is a similar approach to the Facebook group as a collaborative research log we saw in Module III: Collaboration.

While this is collaboration 2.0 in action, I actually wanted to talk about something else from INF 1240: critical making. Last week we were introduced to the idea of critical making. Ratto (2011) describes critical making as “a mode of materially productive engagement that is intended to fill the gap between creative physical and conceptual exploration” (p. 252).

There are three stages to critical making. The first involves reviewing relevant literature and compiling useful concepts and theories. The second stage involves groups of scholars, students, stakeholders jointly designing/creating an artifact. And the third stage is an iterative process that involves reconfiguring the artifact, conversation, and reflection (Ratto, 2011). The emphasis of critical making is not on the artifact created, but rather the process—the value lies in shared construction, joint conversation, and reflection (Ratto, 2011).

Through collaboration in this form, individuals from the social sciences and computer sciences can reduce problematic disciplinary divides. The process—construction, conversation, and reflection—can highlight disciplinary differences and as well as ways to overcome these differences. If you listen to the interview with Ratto below, he suggests that critical making can create an understanding and allow participants to see beyond the norms we as society associate with technology. It’s about transforming the personal and collective imagination.

While critical making may not fall into the category of collaboration 2.0, I do think it is worth discussing in relation to this module. The idea of the shared making experience and the importance of this process is very interesting. I think in many ways that is what makes collaboration in general useful. It is the process of collaborating—what we learn from each other through making, conversing, and reflecting—that has such great value. Of course, in situations outside of critical making the final product is important in and of itself.

Listen to Matt Ratto talk to Nora Young on the CBC’s Spark about critical making. Note: this interview was originally embedded on this blog, but it was a victim of autoplay.

Watch a short video of critical making as it happens:

Thing Tank: Workshop 13 – Energy Monitoring and Data Visualization from Ryan Varga on Vimeo.

Ratto, M. (2011). Critical Making: Conceptual and Material Studies in Technology and Social Life. The Information Society: An International Journal. 27(4), 252-260.

1 Comment

Posted in Collaboration, LIBR 559M

Tagged , , , , , ,