For the heck of it, emily and I held our own academy awards. We asked some family and friends to nominate and vote for their favorite movies (actors, acresses, etc.), to see what would happen in contrast to the Oscars. So we had 7 nominators and 12 voters in all! Thanks to those who participated:) See you next year.
And, a while ago Salt Lake City film critic Sean P. Means said that if the Oscars were left to the masses, not the elite, Pirates of the Caribbean would win for best picture because it made the most money. In this instance of a small sample of mass, he's wrong - Pirates won for technical awards, but wasn't even nominated for best picture. Goes to prove that while people shell out money for spectacular entertainment, people generally know when they see quality movies.
And the winners are:
Best Picture: Tie between The Prestige and Stranger than Fiction
Oscar picked: The Departed
Best Comedy: Nacho Libre
Best Animated Feature: Tie between Over the Hedge and Cars
Oscar picked: Happy Feet
Best Foreign Film: Nacho Libre :)
Oscar picked: Leben der Anderen, Das
Best Actor: Kevin Spacey, Superman Returns
Oscar picked: Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland (obviously a late nod to his work in "Bloodsport."
Best Supporting Actor: Philip Seymour Hoffman, MI:3
Oscar picked: Alan Arkin, Little Miss Sunshine
Best Actress: Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears Prada
Oscar picked: Helen Mirren, The Queen
Best Supporting Actress: Natalie Portman, V for Vendetta
Oscar picked: Jennifer Hudson
Best Director: J.J. Abrams, MI:3
Oscar picked: Martin Scorsese, The Departed (and Raging Bull...and Goodfellas...)
Best Art Direction: Tie between Superman Returns and Flyboys
Oscar picked: Pan's Labrynth
Best Original Screenplay: Tie between Rocky Balboa and The Fountain
Oscar picked: Little Miss Sunshine
Best Adapted Screenplay: The Prestige
Oscar picked: The Departed
Best Short, Live Action: Der Ostwind
Oscar picked: West Bank Story
Best Cinematography: The Prestige
Oscar picked: Pan's Labrynth
Best Sound: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Oscar picked: Dreamgirls
Best Costume Design: The Devil Wears Prada
Oscar picked: Marie Antoinette
Best Makeup: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Oscar picked: Pan's Labrynth
Best Visual Effects: Night at the Museum
Oscar picked: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Best Original Musical Score: The Fountain
Oscar picked: Babel
Best Song: "I am I am", Nacho Libre
Oscar Picked: "I Need To Wake Up", An Inconvenient Truth
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
a night at borders: david schaffer, jim gee, computer games and children learning.
Tonight I skipped out of class early to go see Jim Gee interview David Williamson Schaffer about his new book, "How Computer Games Help Children Learn" at Borders. It was an "Inside the Actor's Studio" kind of interview, and there was an interesting mix of people - about half academics and half parents concerned about their kids' computer game habits.
What the book is about is how Schaffer and others in the Learning Sciences dept. of UW have created a series of simulation type games currently being tested and researched as they are used by students in schools. The games imply Schaffer's vision (shared by many) of what schools need to be: tailored for the digital age rather than the industrial age (for which our schools were designed). Schaffer stated that 50 years of cognitive science research indicated that our schools are not working. By "working" he seems to mean that our industrial age schools are not adequately preparing students to compete, express themselves, and contribute in a digital age - where global economy and communication is a reality.
I like that his educational games (he calls them epistemic games) are Vygotskian and Dewey-an in nature: they place students in professional, social roles, like journalist, urban planner, business owner. Why are these computer games educational? They give students power (which, Schaffer added, equals fun), they have goals embedded in authentic contexts - meaning facts are learned out of necessity to accomplish said goal.
So what hit me tonight was that a major value in playing video and computer games is that we learn how to look at life from different perspectives because of this technology. Perspectives that for students would otherwise be difficult if not impossible to experience. Why is that good? If we're talking about Schaffer's epistemic games, games are good because after "being" an urban planner working with a community to improve Salt Lake City, for example, the student will often perform better in routine aspects of life - conversing with adults better, problem solving better, expressing opinions on current events better. All because he was able to experience a role in a simulated world.
Anyway, I'm starting the book, and thinking about the question: Of all the simulated perspectives we can experience, which ones matter?
What the book is about is how Schaffer and others in the Learning Sciences dept. of UW have created a series of simulation type games currently being tested and researched as they are used by students in schools. The games imply Schaffer's vision (shared by many) of what schools need to be: tailored for the digital age rather than the industrial age (for which our schools were designed). Schaffer stated that 50 years of cognitive science research indicated that our schools are not working. By "working" he seems to mean that our industrial age schools are not adequately preparing students to compete, express themselves, and contribute in a digital age - where global economy and communication is a reality.
I like that his educational games (he calls them epistemic games) are Vygotskian and Dewey-an in nature: they place students in professional, social roles, like journalist, urban planner, business owner. Why are these computer games educational? They give students power (which, Schaffer added, equals fun), they have goals embedded in authentic contexts - meaning facts are learned out of necessity to accomplish said goal.
So what hit me tonight was that a major value in playing video and computer games is that we learn how to look at life from different perspectives because of this technology. Perspectives that for students would otherwise be difficult if not impossible to experience. Why is that good? If we're talking about Schaffer's epistemic games, games are good because after "being" an urban planner working with a community to improve Salt Lake City, for example, the student will often perform better in routine aspects of life - conversing with adults better, problem solving better, expressing opinions on current events better. All because he was able to experience a role in a simulated world.
Anyway, I'm starting the book, and thinking about the question: Of all the simulated perspectives we can experience, which ones matter?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
best sentence I read today
"Gee argues that Ninja Gaiden, when taken as a piece of instruction is artfully constructed to produce learning, learning that is not just of any sort, but in this case, teaches the player to play like a ninja (as opposed to, say, like Rambo)."
-Kurt Squire
-Kurt Squire
Thursday, February 8, 2007
school, video games, narrative, and Wii!
my advisor here at school writes 500 words a day to stay in "shape," and I made the goal to do the same for a while, so I thought today at least I'd write about school and what I'm up to at UW.
First of all, one of the coolest things I've done here so far is play Nintendo Wii in one of my classes this semester. It is really fun, and if I ever buy a new console, this is what I'll get. With all the hubub of Playstation 3 just coming out, Nintendo Wii has been a suprise hit that I think is hard to find in stores still because people keep buying them up. Why it's cool: the players use wireless "wand" like controls with wriststraps that communicate the players' motion. So sports games are popular with it - I played bowling, tennis, and baseball and had a lot of fun.
My opponent and I were standing up and active while playing, so chalk one up for nintendo being smart in making a console that encourages physical activity. The games are "simplified" (in baseball you don't field the ball, you just pitch or hit), but still a lot of fun. The other cool thing is that despite the graphics being relatively simple, you can design your own players to look suprisingly similar to yourself or people you know. And in bowling, all of the created characters lounge and interact in the background during a game, and it's just kind of fun to see. Celebrities were also characters, like Spock, and the fish captain guy from Return of the Jedi. So I'm pumped about it, and will probably buy the Wii 2 by the time I can afford to get one.
Video games are the focus I'm taking on for my dissertation, though I'm still working on finding my exact focus. Here's my thinking: I'm coming from a film background and an instructional design background, and now am in an educational program researching video games heavily. I'm interested in all three areas (or four areas, I guess), and after brainstorming figured out that I'm really interested in the "story" and how stories can be used to teach.
Right now I'm looking into the question of how the design of narrative structures in video games might impact how people learn from them. It's really broad, and I'm talking with other grad students and professors to whittle it down to a good research question, but i'm still having trouble. Story, or narrative is the commonality between film, instruction, and video games that interests me, but I'm trying to find that "so what?" answer.
Some of my questions: Would tweaking the narrative structure (or narrative architechture, as Henry Jenkins would say), of a game affect the things people learn? Are there narrative design practices that could inform good instructional design? Or does good narrative design in a game pretty much just enhance engagement of the player? It seems to me that scaffolding (supporting the learner, and then gradually taking away that support as they become autonomous) is a technique used in both video games and instructional design. Good scaffolding (think helping a child learn how to ride a bike) is a delicate thing, I think; a learner needs to feel in control of something (increasingly) to be happy while learning. So maybe I could look into scaffolding techniques used in both practices and compare.
The education world and federal government are really interested in video games and simulations right now, so it's an exciting time to be looking at education and video games. In one of my classes we're using video game design software that is being built right now in our department. Any ideas for a video game I should make this semester? Maybe I'll stick to my roots and make my own Street Fighter game.
Also, my prof. Kurt Squire assigned us to play through 2 or 3 games this semester. Sweet! By a twist of fate my brother in law James let me borrow his Playstation 2, and tons of games. So right now I'm playing "Kingdom Hearts," a 2002 hybrid of action and rpg (role playing game). I've never been big into rpg's, like Zelda, but I'm liking the genre more as I play this. The premise is that four characters from the "Final Fantasy" world are involved in a story with Disney worlds and characters. I've just started, and am a final fantasy guy trying to get off of an island. I'm getting into it.
If you've read this far, thanks for spending the time!! And if you can find a way, play a Wii!!
First of all, one of the coolest things I've done here so far is play Nintendo Wii in one of my classes this semester. It is really fun, and if I ever buy a new console, this is what I'll get. With all the hubub of Playstation 3 just coming out, Nintendo Wii has been a suprise hit that I think is hard to find in stores still because people keep buying them up. Why it's cool: the players use wireless "wand" like controls with wriststraps that communicate the players' motion. So sports games are popular with it - I played bowling, tennis, and baseball and had a lot of fun.
My opponent and I were standing up and active while playing, so chalk one up for nintendo being smart in making a console that encourages physical activity. The games are "simplified" (in baseball you don't field the ball, you just pitch or hit), but still a lot of fun. The other cool thing is that despite the graphics being relatively simple, you can design your own players to look suprisingly similar to yourself or people you know. And in bowling, all of the created characters lounge and interact in the background during a game, and it's just kind of fun to see. Celebrities were also characters, like Spock, and the fish captain guy from Return of the Jedi. So I'm pumped about it, and will probably buy the Wii 2 by the time I can afford to get one.
Video games are the focus I'm taking on for my dissertation, though I'm still working on finding my exact focus. Here's my thinking: I'm coming from a film background and an instructional design background, and now am in an educational program researching video games heavily. I'm interested in all three areas (or four areas, I guess), and after brainstorming figured out that I'm really interested in the "story" and how stories can be used to teach.
Right now I'm looking into the question of how the design of narrative structures in video games might impact how people learn from them. It's really broad, and I'm talking with other grad students and professors to whittle it down to a good research question, but i'm still having trouble. Story, or narrative is the commonality between film, instruction, and video games that interests me, but I'm trying to find that "so what?" answer.
Some of my questions: Would tweaking the narrative structure (or narrative architechture, as Henry Jenkins would say), of a game affect the things people learn? Are there narrative design practices that could inform good instructional design? Or does good narrative design in a game pretty much just enhance engagement of the player? It seems to me that scaffolding (supporting the learner, and then gradually taking away that support as they become autonomous) is a technique used in both video games and instructional design. Good scaffolding (think helping a child learn how to ride a bike) is a delicate thing, I think; a learner needs to feel in control of something (increasingly) to be happy while learning. So maybe I could look into scaffolding techniques used in both practices and compare.
The education world and federal government are really interested in video games and simulations right now, so it's an exciting time to be looking at education and video games. In one of my classes we're using video game design software that is being built right now in our department. Any ideas for a video game I should make this semester? Maybe I'll stick to my roots and make my own Street Fighter game.
Also, my prof. Kurt Squire assigned us to play through 2 or 3 games this semester. Sweet! By a twist of fate my brother in law James let me borrow his Playstation 2, and tons of games. So right now I'm playing "Kingdom Hearts," a 2002 hybrid of action and rpg (role playing game). I've never been big into rpg's, like Zelda, but I'm liking the genre more as I play this. The premise is that four characters from the "Final Fantasy" world are involved in a story with Disney worlds and characters. I've just started, and am a final fantasy guy trying to get off of an island. I'm getting into it.
If you've read this far, thanks for spending the time!! And if you can find a way, play a Wii!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)