Co-creation in health

add your insight...

Materiales de Gamificación en la educación y la formación.

This deck loses something in translation. Sure it was more dynamic when presented (and am going to look for notes). I wanted to Scoop.it to rant about Gartner. 

Gartner is playing both sides of the #gamification trend. They promote it on the one hand saying everyone is doing it and then tear it down with their famous 80% will fail study. 

Newsflash Gartner 80% of all Internet marketing fails. How do I know this? 7 Years as a Director of Ecommerce taught me the immutable truth of Pareto's distribution otherwise known as the 80/20 rule. 

On any website 20% of anything will control 80% of anything (sales, clicks, shares, whatever). Congratulations Gartner your study discovered the 80/20 rule and then presented it as if was news (hey whatever it takes I guess). 

Don't be fooled by idiots, Internet marketing is a gamification engine. Even if you use very LOW LEVEL gamification such as a simple loyalty program or a contest or a game (with a leaderboard) you know games work online and don't let anyone tell you different.  

Ma cos'è la gamification? Lo spiega tramite una serie di slide Karl Kapp, insegnante, scrittore ed esperto della convergenza dell'insegnamento, della tecnologia e delle operazioni di business, professore di "Instructional technology" e "Instructional Game Design" all'università di Bloomsburg. Ha scritto "The Gamification of learning and Instruction".

Pharmageek partenaire de Interaction Healthcare à l'occasion de la conférence :

"Du serious game au Google glass, comment la simulation numérique peut changer la pratique du médecin et la vie du patient ?"

qui aura lieu

le 3 avril prochain à PARIS

INSCRIVEZ VOUS

I'm a huge fan of this Slide by Marty Smith. 

L'apprendimento ludico o gamification nasce dall'utilizzo di risorse e funzionalità progettate secondo modelli ludici in contesti non ludici.

La premessa teorica implicita nella strategia della gamification nasce dal constatazione che nel gioco, sia quello tradizionale che nei video games, i giocatori mostrano costanza, impegno, capacità di assumere rischi calcolati, attenzione al dettaglio, capacità di problem solving, costanza e continuità nell'agire, alti ritmi di apprendimento.

Si tratta di capacità e abilità che sono considerate  essenziali nell'attività scolastica e formativa. Ci si chiede allora se tali caratteristiche del gioco, capaci di produrre simili comportamenti, siano trasferibili in ambito didattico.

L'infografica cerca di rappresentare graficamente lo stato della questione su tale problema e di individuare gli elementi del gaming che possono essere utilizzati  in ambito educativo, quali:

livelli

punteggi

riconoscimenti

collaborazione

viralità

bouns

scoperta

gioco e apprendimento infinito

countdown

rifiuto della perdita

sintesi

ecc.

e di classificarli in categorie generali

progressione

investimento

cascading information theory

per poi cercare di implementare tali elementi nelle pratiche educative

«A game must offer meaningful experiences to engage its players, particularly problem solving. For scholarship, that means asking and trying to answer meaningful questions. Here is where there is considerable debate in the Digital Humanities community as to how much these questions have to relate to the traditional questions of the Humanities? Personally, I do not feel prescriptive on this issue. An important part of the game experience is making choices and finding out what happens. I would like to leave this space as wide open as possible. Initially, we needn’t think of our playful experiments as providing any necessary insight into our “real world” scholarship, nor should we let that scholarship impose strict constraints on our play. That defeats the purpose of the game. We are not building Camelot—only a model.

Gamification can suggest a number of strategies for demonstrating the relationship between our play and our scholarly endeavours. Performing at different levels (“levelling up”) and receiving badges—perhaps representing confidence in the statistical validity of our results, and the like—would be typical methods. Just as (ideally) workers create real innovations and businesses provide real-world rewards for progress in the games, so scholars might progress along a similar continuum of activity. But I am sceptical of these strategies (at least, in this relatively undeveloped account) because they inevitably privilege the reward over the process and diminish interest in the intervening steps. I also suspect that many digital humanists would now go further and suggest that those steps are essentially performative and need not be seen in teleological terms (that is, as a means to some higher scholarly end). Incorporating “play” in scholarship eventually blurs the boundaries between analysis, interpretation, and creativity. That is appealing to some, deeply disturbing to others. As of now, I find myself on the fence, wishing to think more deeply about how to negotiate the status of objects I produce through “scholarly play”.»